Per Abrahamsen wrote:

> MPL is not intended to "protect" derived code in the CopyLeft sense.
> It is not a copyleft license.

I do not disagree with your explanation in general, but I think that
you are using a very limited notion of 'copyleft'.

According to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

 "Copyleft is a general concept; there are many ways to fill in the
  details. [...]
  An alternate form of copyleft, the GNU Lesser General Public License
  (LGPL) [...]
  If you would like to copyleft your program with the GNU GPL or the
  GNU LGPL, [...]"

It seems to me that GPL, LGPL, and MPL all are copylefted licenses,
but each have a different scope (executable, library, and file,
respectively).

Reply via email to