On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Richard Fontana fontana@sharpeleven.org wrote:
On 08/07/2012 12:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Richard Fontana fontana@sharpeleven.org wrote:
Luis, what's your take (if any) on MPL/EPL compatibility?
Same problem (inclusion of individual MPL file in an EPL work is problematic.)
To me this just re-states the problem. What is an "EPL work",
I thought it was understood that that is a problem with EPL generally. It's nuts to draft a license that literally cannot be interpreted without hiring a copyright lawyer.
Assuming a weaker definition of "work" (such as you imply might be the case) then MPL is fine with that, as it is concerned only with the individual file(s) under MPL. But I admit I have not looked closely at the EPL community's interpretation of the term.
I'd add that this is less difficult for MPL 2 because:
- It's a relatively weak copyleft; and
- to the extent we're strong (e.g., the patent clause, which I still
need to discuss on this list), the requirement that you be combining with another work under the alternative license mitigates the risk somewhat of someone saying "ah, I'm using under this weaker patent clause, so I can sue you with impunity."
I haven't pushed this to gitorioius yet, but I have a draft EPL compatibility provision that says:
You may Distribute a Derived Work that includes files licensed under the Eclipse Public License 1.0 ("EPL"), provided that such Distribution complies with the requirements of the EPL. The requirement stated in [Distribution: General](b) of This License shall be narrowed in scope solely to the extent necessary to facilitate this permission.
A problem with this approach, which is the only one feasible I think, is it has that unfortunate "stet license cleverness" quality to it.
Yes, but that (and definition of "work") aside, it seems reasonable. Would certainly work for MPL, I would think (though can't review it carefully enough right at this moment to be certain).
Luis