Christian Schenzel wrote:
> I had a discussion with a developer who wants to use the JavaScript
> implementation of Mozilla for a commercial embedded product. He claims he
> can sell that with a "traditional" licence (based on copies) to his
> customers.
He's basically correct; see below for further discussion. Also, a
disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. It's my
personal opinion based on my reading of the MPL.
> He says he just adds code to the project and does not or only on
> a very small scale modify the original code and claims his project falls
> under clause 3.7 (larger works).
If his new code is in fact new and is not based on the Mozilla code,
then, yes, the product consisting of a combination of his code and the
Mozilla code would be a Larger Work in MPL terms. And as MPL 3.7 says,
his code can be under a different license than the MPL.
> He is willing to provide the licencees
> with the modified MPL source and his additions.
He is required under the MPL to make available the relevant Mozilla
source code, including his modifications to it, to people to whom he
distributes his own product containing such code. So it appears that
he's going to comply with that requirement.
> The Mozilla part will be linked to his code via a static library (but I
> think a dynamic library wouldn't change this).
That's correct, the interpretation of the MPL has nothing to do with the
way the code is linked. See also below.
> I claim this violates the MPL. I think the only way for him to "use" the
> Mozilla code is by communicating on a different level (e.g. DCOM) with a
> separate executable.
I think you're confusing the MPL and GPL. Like the GPL, the MPL is a
"copyleft" license, in that the license terms extend not just to the
original code but to certain derived works of that code. However the MPL
restricts its scope to works that (in essence) consist of the original
source files or modifications to those source files. If you create a new
source file that consists of brand-new code, and you combine that file
with other source files under the MPL to create an application, then you
do _not_ have to license your own code under the MPL. You can use
whatever license you choose for your own code, including a proprietary
license.
On the other hand, the GPL does not restrict its scope, it applies to
any works that a court might interpret as being derived works of the
original GPLed code. Since no court has ever ruled on the scope of the
GPL, in practice the commonly-acknowledged scope of the GPL is whatever
the Free Software Foundation says it is. It's the FSF that has put forth
the interpretations about the GPL applying in the case of static and
dynamic linking, but not in the case of executables invoked in a
separate process. But none of that has anything to do with the MPL.
> Who is right? Is there a way for him to use the MPL code for his
> proprietary program using "traditional" calling methods?
Yes. It appears that he's doing exactly the same sort of thing Netscape
is doing in creating Netscape 6 -- he's using Mozilla code to create a
Larger Work that is licensed under proprietary terms. This is perfectly
OK to do, as long as he fulfills the requirements of the MPL for that
part of his code which is under the MPL.
Frank
--
Frank Hecker work: http://www.collab.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] home: http://www.hecker.org/
