[om-list] Re: MPL / GPL incompatibility

[Tom and other Packers]

Mark

    MPL just seems so flexible.  GPL has been likened unto a virus,
extending itself to anything that touches the previously infected software.
MPL stops on whatever source file boundary you wish.  And this seems very
good for the MTShell project, because some pieces will be need to be
proprietary (for Dan and TF), and some will need to be open (for you and
OM).  And I can take full advantage of everything we write as open source in
whatever next-phase of development we choose to adopt, whether it be open or
not.  I'm hoping that TF will see the value, and beg me to make a more
complete, proprietary system out of it in the next few years.  But I have
little or no reason to close those source files that we start with at that
point.  Those files can continue being open.

    Does that address what you were hoping me to?

    I don't understand why anyone would want to combine licences.  Wouldn't
the stricter license be equivalent?

tomp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Butler" <butlerm at middle.net>
To: "Tom Packer" <tomp at middle.net>
Cc: "One Model List" <om-list at onemodel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: MPL / GPL incompatibility


Luke Call wrote:

> One drawback (or benefit, some would say) of MPL is that (if I
> understand right) no one can link GPL code with MPL code.

The practical way to fix this problem if you have some preference for
the MPL, is to adopt both the MPL and the (L)GPL.  The Mozilla people
are busy arranging to have all the source files triple licensed under
the MPL/GPL/LGPL for this very reason.

In my opinion you should either choose the LGPL alone, or some dual /
triple licensing scheme that includes the LGPL.  The MPL format for
keeping track of the original author and contributors to a given file
is an excellent idea in any case.

Do you care to comment on why you prefer the MPL, Tom?

 - Mark