Re: Problem with MPL

Marco van de Voort wrote:

On 2007-11-08, none <""> wrote:

"The Free Software Foundation (FSF) considers the license a free
software license, but "not a strong copyleft" one. However, "unlike
the X11 license" the license has "some complex restrictions" making
it incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge people not to use the
license because of this incompatibility unless the provision in
section 13 of the MPL is exercised to provide the work under either
the GPL or any other GPL-compatible license"

It is exactly the same statement that is my problem too.

The FSF website says:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL

<<
That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL
cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for
this reason.


Well, I would urge people not to use the GPL for this reason. The GPL
has other well known problems as well. <g>

The greatest problem many people here have with the GPL is (as
Wikipedia puts it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl#Criticism

<<
The GPL has been described as being "viral" by many of its critics,
because the GPL terms require that all modified versions of the
original software, or other software that links with the original GPL
software must in turn be licensed under the GPL. This is part of a
philosophical difference between the GPL and permissive free software
licenses such as the BSD-style licenses, which do not put this
requirement on modified versions. While proponents of the GPL believe
that free software should ensure that its freedoms are preserved all
the way from the developer to the user, others believe that
intermediaries between the developer and the user should be free to
redistribute the software as non-free software.


Of course, freedom is relative. It all depends on who is free to do
what. <g>

Also:

<<
The GPL has no indemnification clause explicitly protecting maintainers
and developers from litigation resulting from unscrupulous
contribution. (If a developer submits existing patented or copyright
work to a GPL project claiming it as their own contribution, all the
project maintainers and even other developers can be held legally
responsible for damages to the copyright or patent holder.) Lack of
indemnification is one criticism that lead Mozilla to create the
Mozilla Public License rather than use the GPL or LGPL.

--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]

"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them."
-- Isaac Asimov.
.

Relevant Pages