Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Frank Hecker wrote: > > On the other hand, the GPL cannot be merged with any code other than GPL > code (except for OS and compiler libraries).
Not true, the GPL is compatible with code under quite a number of licenses that the FSF enumerates. >>The question is whether the LGPL would allow MPLed code to be combined >>with LGPLed code (i.e., putting Mozilla code into an LGPLed library) >>and the resulting work distributed under LGPL terms (as required by >>the LGPL). > > The LGPL wouldn't care, as far as I can tell. However, since the MPL > doesn't let you relicense the code under another license, the MPL wouldn't > let you merge the MPL code with the LGPL code (in the same file, with > the license of the MPL code changed to the LGPL). Nor would the LGPL allow you to relicense a chunk of code to MPL; don't blame the MPL alone for this, it goes both ways. In fact this is pretty standard for all licenses, even the ones that the FSF considers compatible with the GPL. The compatible ones tend not to make any claims on the compiled code, but they commonly claim things like "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" (i.e. can't turn it into GPL, which is restrictive), or "This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution." (again, you can't turn it into some other license). > Actually putting the Mozilla code, e.g. parts of nsCSSRendering.cpp, into > an LGPL library, though, is not allowed, since the MPL doesn't grant you > the right to change your license, and the LGPL requires the library to be > under one license, the LGPL. The MPL allows you to distribute a "larger work" under a different license--as long as certain requirements are met. It's the latter, not the former, that causes the problem. > (IANAL, I am merely trying to apply logic to the text of the licenses...) As are we all. -Dan Veditz
