[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-license
Subject:    LGPL/GPL licensing issues Was: Re: A statement on NPL/MPL/GPL licensing issues
From:       Alan Braggins <armb () ncipher ! com>
Date:       1998-03-28 13:00:14
[Download RAW message or body]

moglen@columbia.edu wrote:
> 1.  Can the NPL be made to coexist with GPL-covered code by minor
> modifications of the NPL not in any way harmful to Netscape's
> interests?
[...]
> FSF seeks two amendments to the NPL that would, in my opinion, resolve
> the problem in a way that is completely non-injurious to Netscape's
> interests.  The two paragraphs would be added to the NPL following the
> current Larger Works provision 3.7:
> 
>    3.7.1. You may distribute a Covered Work under the terms of the GNU
>      General Public License, version 2 or newer, as published by the Free
>      Software Foundation, when it is included in a Larger Work which is
>      as a whole distributed under the terms of the same version of the
>      GNU General Public License.
> 
>    3.7.2. If you have received a copy of a Larger Work under the terms of a
>      version or a choice of versions of the GNU General Public License,
>      and you make modifications to some NPL-covered portions of this
>      Larger Work, you have the option of altering these portions to say
>      that their distribution terms are that version or that choice of
>      versions of GNU General Public License.

So far all the discussion of dual licensing I've seen has
concentrated on the GPL. I'd like to propose an alternative.
MPL is already compatible with LGPL - the LGPL should be
made compatible with the GPL, and dual licensing under
MPL and LGPL encouraged (but not forced or made automatic).

At present the LGPL and GPL are incompatible - if I combine
LGPLed code with GPLed code, the LGPL requires me to distibute
the whole work under LGPL, and the GPL requires me to distribute
the whole work under GPL. Neither license, as far as I can see,
gives permission to choose to license under the other. (I am not
a lawyer. If I'm wrong, it just means there is less to do). If terms
similar to those above were added to the LGPL, then they would be.
Alternatively, a term could be added to the GPL saying that where
LGPLed code is included in a larger work, that part of the larger
work need not be covered by the GPL.
(I can use a combined work myself and not distribute it, but then
I can do that with GPLed and NPLed code as well).

If the changes I suggest were made, then dual MPL/LGPL licensed
parts of mozilla code (only) could then be used in (otherwise)
GPL'ed projects.

If it isn't reasonable for those changes to be made to the LGPL,
it seems even less reasonable for them to be made to the MPL.
If I'm mistaken about the LGPL and GPL's incompatibility (as a
matter of law, not of the practicality that neither of the
copyright owners are actually likely to object if LGPL and GPL
code are mixed), then dual licensed MPL and LGPL code can already
be used in GPL projects.

This wouldn't meet the FSF's aim of having all code under a GPL
like license, but the LGPL exists exactly because they realise
that aim isn't always achievable. If little or no MPL code is
also placed under LGPL, then GPL coders don't get the benefit
they would if all MPLed code could be GPLed, and they won't have
the incentive to LGPL their code so mozilla can use it, but if,
as seems likely, the FSF's proposed changes are unacceptable
to mozilla.org/Netscape, it at least makes it possible for code
to be shared.

-- 
Alan Braggins  mailto:armb@ncipher.com  http://www.ncipher.com/
nCipher Corporation Ltd.  +44 1223 723600  Fax: +44 1223 723601

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]