We have heard from several sources that FSF states that the GPL is
incompatible with the MPL, because the MPL has some "additional
conditions" which the GPL does not allow:
| it has some complex restrictions
| that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL.
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses>
But I don't remember hearing, which exact terms in the MPL are the
problem. Which are those?
I am asking, because I think that making the MPL compatible might be the
better way for the relicensing. It would have the following advantages:
* No need to contact individual Mozilla contributors for permission
to relelase under GPL too.
* No grief from some Mozilla contributors who don't like the GPL
* Makes all MPL projects GPL-compatible
The GPL incompatibility is probably always unwatned and often the
project are not even aware of the problem. Examples are OpenH323
and derivative projects.
Disadvantges:
* Changing licenses always gives laywers stomach
The advantages are look larger, but it depends on the actual changes
required.
I happened to read a FSF statement about one of Python's licenses
<http://www.python.org/2.1/fsf.html>, which says:
| The other issue over which we spent much time in negotiation with CNRI
| is the applicable law provision in paragraph 7.
| The GPL doesn't use an applicable law provision.
[rationale cutted]
| So we have never allowed a license with a choice-of-law clause to be
| treated as fully compatible with GPL.
BTW: The same mail also says about the GPL:
| We're about elegance. We try to use the absolute minimum
hah!
So, one of the incompatibilities seems to be that the MPL defines
California as the jurisdiction. There must be more.
Ben
