On 07/09/2013 04:36 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 02:14:47PM +0300, Engel Nyst wrote:
> A few comments on the experimental branch.[1]
>
> 1) Section 4, copyleft conditions, 3rd paragraph, says that you could
> distribute "a Modification under this License even if it incorporates
> third-party material governed by a license that is both OSI-Approved and
> FSF-Free". It seems to amount to distribution of code under two
> licenses, in the sense of juxtaposing code under different licenses in
> the same file, which sounds very confusing. I suppose this reading is
> incorrect, or there is some reason for this?
This is meant to be comparable to the case of a source file licensed
under the GPL but incorporating GPL-compatible elements. It's
basically just taking one common license compatibility scenario and
relaxing orthodox criteria for GPL compatibility.
Cf.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html
I don't see how it is directly applicable this way, unless I'm missing
something.
GPL (and MPL, and other licenses) can incorporate in files too, code
distributed under licenses which have practically a perfect subset of
conditions (of GPL, or of MPL). So it can do that. But in copyleft-next
context, a file under MPL (a license that is both OSI-Approved and
FSF-Free), cannot have a top license text added saying that it's
copyleft-next. MPL doesn't allow that. Please correct me if this is wrong.
Code under MPL can interact with any code, and code under copyleft-next
can interact with any open licensed code in a larger work with both;
without licensing issues or uncertainties. But that doesn't allow me to
break MPL requirements: copyrightable code under MPL needs to be in
files distributed as MPL. Do I badly misunderstand something?