Gunther Schadow scripsit: > Specifically what is the practical difference between LGPL and MPL?
A bit of personal history here: when ESR was going to Netscape to discuss with them what license to free Mozilla under, I advised him to advise them to avoid the LGPL. The distinction between a work based on the Program (which must be GPL or LGPL) and a work that merely uses the Program is straightforward in easy cases, but I am less than convinced that the LGPL really pins down the distinction. How many non-Java programmers actually release the proprietary parts of their programs in linkable form, as the LGPL demands, so that the LGPLed part can be replaced simply by relinking? )@#$ few, I bet. The MPL makes use of the notion of "files" to clearly distinguish between the MPLed code (changes to which must be under the MPL) and everything else. The LGPL does, however, have the option of conversion to the GPL: in effect, all LGPL code is dual-licensed under the LGPL and the GPL. > Is there any case law regarding open source licenses that > had been contested? Not so far as anybody knows. Eben Moglen does enforce the GPL out of court all the time, though. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Most languages are dramatically underdescribed, and at least one is dramatically overdescribed. Still other languages are simultaneously overdescribed and underdescribed. Welsh pertains to the third category. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
