[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > I'd like to distribute some software under the same trilicence as mozilla > (gpl/lgpl/mpl). > > I'd like to include two javascript files that are licenced under mpl only. So, > I would provide a LICENCE file, and tell something along the lines of: > every file in the project can be reused under the terms either of mpl or of > gpl > or of mpl. > except files a and b, which can be reused under the terms of mpl only.
That would be the right thing to do... > As far as I understand mpl faq [1], I think I can do that. > >> Files which fall under the MPL because they are or contain Modifications must >> be made available as detailed in the license (or elsewhere in this FAQ.) >> Other files may be kept proprietary. > > allows me to do that. > >> May I combine MPLed code and GPL-licensed code in the same binary? >> No > > does not apply because it's about javascript, not binary compilation. ...but this is not the reason that it's the right thing to do :-) Every time a redistribution happens, it happens under exactly one set of license terms. It could be that the person offering the code offers a choice, in which case the recipient chooses. Or, the person offering the code may only offer the code under one licence, in which case the recipient can take it or leave it. If you include two JS files under the MPL, then *your* distribution to other people must be under MPL terms. It can't be under GPL terms, because there are two MPLed files, and the GPL doesn't allow that. If the person who you give the software wants to redistribute it, they can either redistribute the whole lot under MPLed terms, or they can remove A and B and then redistribute the rest under GPLed terms. You want to make people who get the code from you aware of this possibility, so you should include a file explaining it, as you said you were going to do. Does that make sense? Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
