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

[Benoit Jacob]

----- Original Message -----
> 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.

Even with the new phrasing, it still seems possible to me (non-lawyer, non-native-English-speaker) to interprete 1.7 as excluding static linking.

Could please you add an entry about this to the MPL FAQ? Some real users indicated that just a FAQ entry clarifying the intent of the license, would already help.

Cheers,
Benoit

[Alexis Richardson]

In my experience, if lawyers can do something, and bill for it, they will...
On Dec 23, 2011 8:20 PM, "Benoit Jacob" <bja...@mozilla.com> wrote:

[Luis Villa]

Yes, I'll add a FAQ entry.

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Benoit Jacob <bja...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----

[Mitchell Baker]

I'm hoping this is intended as a humorous comment. .. . .

Both Luis and Heather are (a) volunteers and (b) quite dedicated to
doing the best thing. They are leading this effort to update the MPL as
volunteer contributors because of their support for the license and the
project. Heather has been a volunteer contributor to Mozilla for over
a decade.

I am intensely grateful for their contributions and feel they represent
what's great about the Mozilla project as much as anyone.

mitchell

On 12/23/11 12:23 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> In my experience, if lawyers can do something, and bill for it, they will...

> On Dec 23, 2011 8:20 PM, "Benoit Jacob"<bja...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> governance-mpl-update mailing list
> governance...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance-mpl-update

[Alexis Richardson]

Oh... yes, I see. Yes, I am extremely grateful too.

I was simply trying to suggest that ambiguity can be exploited
cynically by others in the future.

a

[Mitchell Baker]

Ah! a comment on humanity as a species? thanks for the clarification

mitchell

[Alexis Richardson]

More a comment on 5+ years of watching folks find holes in MPL 1.1....

[Mitchell Baker]

Very much like code. Do something new, stress the code in new ways, and
new questions, potential bugs, features or flaws are revealed. Only
this time the compiler is the human brain, often one housed in a system
called "lawyer" :-)

mitchell

[Alexis Richardson]

Which leads me to ask: under what license is the text of the MPL released?

Have a good xmas/holiday everyone.

alexis

[Luis Villa]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Benoit Jacob <bja...@mozilla.com> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----

After reviewing the existing FAQ entries, I've slightly edited an
existing FAQ entry to address this issue.

Q10: How 'viral' is the MPL? If I use MPL-licensed code in my proprietary
application, will I have to give all the source code away?

No. The license requires that Modifications (as defined in Section 1.10
of the license) must be licensed under the MPL and made available to anyone
to whom you distribute the Source Code. However, new files containing no
MPL-licensed code are not Modifications, and therefore do not need to be
distributed under the terms of the MPL, even if you create a Larger
Work (as defined in Section 1.7) by using, compiling, or
distributing the non-MPL files together with MPL-licensed files.
This allows, for example,
programs using MPL-licensed code to be statically linked to and
distributed as part of a larger
proprietary piece of software, which would not generally be possible under
the terms of stronger copyleft licenses.

[Benoit Jacob]

----- Original Message -----
> After reviewing the existing FAQ entries, I've slightly edited an
> existing FAQ entry to address this issue.
>
> Q10: How 'viral' is the MPL? If I use MPL-licensed code in my
> proprietary
> application, will I have to give all the source code away?
>
> No. The license requires that Modifications (as defined in Section
> 1.10
> of the license) must be licensed under the MPL and made available
> to anyone
> to whom you distribute the Source Code. However, new files
> containing no
> MPL-licensed code are not Modifications, and therefore do not need
> to be
> distributed under the terms of the MPL, even if you create a Larger
> Work (as defined in Section 1.7) by using, compiling, or
> distributing the non-MPL files together with MPL-licensed files.
> This allows, for example,
> programs using MPL-licensed code to be statically linked to and
> distributed as part of a larger
> proprietary piece of software, which would not generally be
> possible under
> the terms of stronger copyleft licenses.

Many thanks, that's explicit indeed.

Happy new year,
Benoit