"Larger Work, " one last time [was Re: MPL submitted to Open Source Initiative]

[Luis Villa]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Benoit Jacob <bja...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > FYI for all of you who have contributed here: yesterday I submitted
>> > an
>> > "RC 3" (involving very minor changes from RC2) to the Open Source
>> > Initiative for their approval. If you're interested, you can track
>> > the
>> > discussion via the license-review mailing list archives:
>> >
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2011-December/000001.html
>> >
>> > As you can imagine, this means we're wrapping up and hope to ship in
>> > the very near future! Thanks so much to everyone here for their
>> > input.
>>
>> Can I ask again about my remarks about section 1.7?
>>
>> Sorry if it's been replied to recently: with this week's mozilla.com
>> mail outage, I may have missed something.
>>
>> My concern is that the current text doesn't make it clear if "separate
>> file" in section 1.7 means separate in the Source form or separate in
>> the Executable form. That's a problem because if it were interpreted
>> as "separate in Executable form" then the MPL would prevent statically
>> linking MPL'd libraries to proprietary applications.
>
> Ping! Still waiting for an answer to this question.
>
> Gervase's answer was a useful clarification of the intention of this section, but I would like the text of the license itself to be clarified, or an explanation of why this isn't needed (of why the ambiguity I thought I found, doesn't exist).

Hi, Benoit:

FYI, we submitted a new (final! really! seriously!) revision of the
license to OSI today with one last tweak to this language, making it:

1.7. "Larger Work"
means a work that combines Covered Software with other material,
in a separate file or files, that is not Covered Software.

Your proposed limitation (to Source Code Form) doesn't work, because
we want to permit combination with non-source modules (binary blobs,
plugins, etc.) So we use the broader Covered Software instead, keeping
in mind that Covered Software is defined to include Modifications,
which are Source Code.

At the same time, we have to make clear that this is not a loophole
that allows circumvention of the definition of "Modification"- the
thing being combined must be distinct, and it must not be Covered
Software. We think separate is a good word for this, particularly in
combination with the specific requirement that the thing being
combined not be Covered Software.

Hope that makes you comfortable; we certainly thank you for pushing us on this.

Luis