On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Frank Hecker wrote:
>
> So suppose you take some Mozilla code released by AOL (or whoever) under
> the NPL or MPL, and combine that code with your own code, which you're
> releasing under the GPL. We'll also assume that your code is in new
> source files, i.e., you didn't modify the original NPLed or MPLed files.
> You then distribute a product consisting of the combined code.
>
> Now, regardless of whether the GPL is in theory "incompatible" with the
> MPL or NPL, who is going to sue you for infringement?
Nobody, straight away, has any reason to, since you haven't broken any of
the license terms.
However, if you get a contribution to the GPL code from a third party, and
you then distribute the result, THEN you have broken a license.
Either you broke the GPL, by not licensing the whole product under the
GPL, in which case the third party has grounds to sue you for copyright
infringement, or you violated AOL's copyright (well, all of Mozilla's
contributors' copyrights) by licensing their code under the GPL without
their permission.
Since one of the major benefits of the GPL is that it fosters a community
of contributors, doing what you describe would therefore be rather silly.
(As I'm sure you agree, but JTK may not!)
Certainly I see no advantage, in the scenario above, to using the GPL
rather than the MPL for the new code.
> However this "loophole" doesn't work in general to solve the MPL/GPL
> "incompatibility" problem, since it doesn't allow you to arbitrarily
> take other people's GPLed code, combine it with MPLed code, and
> distribute the resulting work.
Exactly. In practice, this situation is resolved by merely asking the
GPLed code's copyright holders for them to relicense the code under the
MPL as well. (c.f. expat)
>> Furthermore, while AOL can take the Mozilla code, do whatever they so
>> choose to it, and release it to the public, I cannot do the same,
>> correct?
>
> No, you too can do pretty much whatever you want to do to the Mozilla
> code and release it to the public. The only thing you can't do is a)
> violate the license(s) on the Mozilla code or b) change the license(s)
> on that code.
Exactly. One will note that Netscape 6.1's license actually tells you
where you can download the source for the MPLed parts of Netscape 6.1,
just like the MPL license requires.
>> Ok. So how about I release "Uncle Gair's Olde Tyme Mozilla Helper", a
>> set of GPLed (or LGPLed) patches to the Mozilla source, containing no
>> original Mozilla code whatsoever. Just add a few pounds of original
>> Mozilla source, stir, and build, and you got a Mozilla that's not so
>> much of a pig.
>
> IMO you're perfectly free to do this, _if_ your patches are in new files
> and are not modifications to the original MPLed (or NPLed) files.
If the patches contained none of the MPL code, i.e. if they were merely
offsets into the original source files followed by new code, then one
could even distribute "changes" to the MPL files, no?
> (If any of your patches were in the form of modifications to the
> original files then you'd have to release them under the MPL or NPL,
> as required by the licenses on the original code.) IMO you can even
> release your new GPLed (or LGPLed) code with the original Mozilla
> code, as discussed above.
However any recipients could not redistribute the code without breaking
the (GPL) license terms themselves.
> (As usual, please don't confuse my comments with real legal advice from
> real lawyers.)
Ditto. I have no idea what I'm talking about. It's all interpretation. I
am not a lawyer. :-)
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
