Re: [eigen] MPL2 is really compatible with GPL/LGPL

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Christoph Hertzberg
<chtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28.06.2012 22:44, Benoit Jacob wrote:
>> 2012/6/28 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Hi,
>>> I had a look too, and the FAQ really confuses me, especially the
>>> requirements 2 and 3 of this entry
>>> 2 - The Larger Work must be "a combination of Covered Software with a
>>> work governed by one or more Secondary Licenses." So you can't just
>>> say "I really prefer (L)GPL" - you must have a need to combine with
>>> another, existing GPL work. (This is different from a traditional
>>> dual-license, which does not require you to combine, and instead
>>> allows you to simply say "I've decided to be GPL-only.")
>>> 3 - You must "additionally distribute" under (L)GPL. In other words,
>>> you must make the MPL-licensed source code available to your
>>> recipients under both MPL and (L)GPL. Someone downstream from your
>>> recipients can then take under (L)GPL-only or MPL-only. This is
>>> different from a traditional dual-license, which never requires
>>> publication under both licenses, and so always gives you the option of
>>> releasing incompatibly-licensed code.
>>> Does that means if someone combines MPL2 code and LGPL code to build
>>> an app, then the app can be either MPL2 or LGPL?? This does not make
>>> sense to me.
>> No. That's the whole point here: the MPL2 is trying to strike a
>> balance between GPL compatibility, and fixing the loophole whereby
>> people can take MPL code, improve it, and only release the
>> improvements under GPL-only. This is a compromise between two really
>> hard-to-reconcile opposite things, which is why it's complicated.
>> So here's how it works, in my understanding. If someone combines
>> MPL2-licensed Eigen with their (L)GPL code, then they MUST offer the
>> result under MPL, but they are also allowed to dual-license it with
>> one of the Secondary Licenses. So for example, they can dual-license
>> MPL/GPL. A third-party can then take it and drop either license, but
>> they can't directly do it themselves. So the loophole still exists (if
>> they can find a complacent/fake "third-party" to drop the MPL license
>> for them), but it's a lot more inconvenient/dangerous to exploit.
> Wouldn't that logic also allow you to "combine" current (L)GPL Eigen with
> some MPL2 code and wait for some "complacent/fake 'third-party'" to
> redistribute that "combination" under MPL only?
Well, no, for starters, the LGPLv3 section Eigen ostensibly falls
under (section 3) only applies to the license of the produced *object
code*, not the original source code.
Besides that, in the normal case, LGPLv3 requires the LGPLv3 portion
stay LGPLv3 (4a: "Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined
Work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use
are covered by this License.")

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+