On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Richard Fontana
On 08/07/2012 12:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org>
>> 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:
> 1) It's a relatively weak copyleft; and
> 2) 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).