Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Frank Hecker wrote:
>
>>Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>>>And before anyone suggests it, licensing MPL/LGPL would be pointless,
>>>since the MPL allows everything the LGPL allows and more
>>>
>>But IMO the MPL does not allow including Mozilla code in an LGPLed
>>library and distributing the resulting work under the LGPL
Actually I should have said, "the LGPL does not allow ...". The MPL
clearly allows MPLed code to be combined with other code and the product
as a whole distributed under non-MPL terms. 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).
If one says "yes, this is certainly allowed, and does not violate the
terms of the LGPL" then one is basically saying that the MPL is
compatible with the LGPL in this sense. But that would seem to imply (at
least to me) that the MPL is compatible with the GPL as well, i.e., that
one could combine MPLed code with GPLed code (i.e., putting Mozilla code
into a GPLed application) and distribute the resulting work under GPL
terms (as required by the GPL).
But the FSF claims that this is not so, that the MPL is "incompatible"
with the GPL, and thus you cannot combine MPLed code with GPLed code and
distribute the resulting work without violating the terms of the GPL.
And if the MPL is indeed incompatible with the GPL then I do not see how
it could be compatible with the LGPL; what is different about the LGPL
and the GPL in this regard?
So I must conclude that if indeed the MPL is incompatible with the GPL
(as the FSF claims) then it is incompatible with the LGPL as well.
> More importantly, copyright law doesn't allow that (since that would
> involve changing the license terms).
I don't think it's a question of _changing_ license terms (as in
stripping out license notices and replacing them with others), it's more
a matter of allowing distribution under license terms other than those
in the original license. Both the MPL and the LGPL contain language
permitting this in certain specified circumstances, as long as certain
requirements are met.
> Is there a need (real or perceived) for Mozilla code to be
> distributable as an LGPL library?
I believe so. I can certainly conceive of someone wanting to take part
or all of Mozilla (or at least Gecko) and embedding it in (or calling it
from) an LGPL library that would be distributed under LGPL terms.
> As a user of such a library, why would you want to use
> the code as LGPL code rather than MPL code?
Because using it (really, distributing it) under MPL terms wouldn't
allow it to be included in an LGPLed library distributed under LGPL
terms, _if_ you agree that the MPL is "incompatible" with the LGPL. (See
above.)
> (Note that the LGPL is more restrictive than the MPL, which may be
> why a _distributor_ would want to do so, but in that case the point
> is moot since the code already exists under the less restrictive MPL.)
The point is not moot if the distributor can't take advantage of the MPL
terms to include the code in a library distributed under LGPL terms.
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
