Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License? (fwd)
Dennis E. Hamiltonorcmid at email.com
Tue Apr 10 20:48:43 EDT 2001
Since David has responded, I want to point out a case that I completelyneglected. Mainly because the MPL simply doesn't apply, in my view. Thisis an important one with regard to browsers (it even applies to the licenseon IE5.x and many other commercial products, such as components of MSOffice).The MPL grants complete license to *use* the Covered Work or a modificationof the Covered Work, without restriction. This is made very clear insection 2.1 of the license. Any code which is in some sense employed tooperate the Covered Work in some customized way is not subject to the MPL(unless itself a Covered Work or modification thereof).This programmatic use (and what other kind is there, for computersoftware -- when was the last time you communed directly with an applicationprogram? Actually, when was the first time?) is simply and cleanly excludedfrom the reach of the MPL.Now, this is not what is claimed for the GPL by the Free SoftwareFoundation. For the GPL, the FSF argues that any use is viral and the usingprogram must be available under the GPL. They do this by making anextremely broad interpretation of the "derivative work" clause. This iswhat had the FSF issues the LGPL as a separate license. My sense of this isthat RMS wants to see the transitive extension of the viral property havemaximal reach. If I were to ask him whether a GPL'd hardware system couldonly be used to run GLP'd software, I'd expect him to nod his heademphatically. Maybe even jump up and down with glee. I don't have anyquarrel with that (though I think courts may have trouble with that stretchon derivative work), and there is great integrity and consistency inStallman's vision for Free Software. Those are the GPL rules as currentlyinterpreted and you play that game or don't make derivatives of GPL'd code.Simple.The MPL makes no claim of this kind. First it is specifically stated thatderivative works can have their independent portions subject to a differentlicense. Secondly, tolerance for unrestricted "use" is stated at the verybeginning. Finally, the case of "incorporation" in a larger work alsoprovides freedom for the non-Covered-Work portions being under anindependent license.Although the MPL is by no means my favorite Open Source license, it seems tohave successfully contained the GPL virus. As intended.-- Dennis-----Original Message-----From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid at email.com]Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 17:01To:mertz at gnosis.cxCc: Python-listSubject: RE: Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License? (fwd)I had just taken a look and here's my totally-intellectual,legally-uninformed (TILU) appraisal of the situation:First, there is a Covered Work (or Works) that were covered by the MPL thathave been used in building Komodo. That is, some portion, perhapssubstantial, includes code or modifications of code from MPL-covered works.If that isn't the case, the conversation is over.So long as Covered Works are relied upon, then the following provisions kickin without exception:[ more affirmation of the rules that apply to Covered Works and theirmodifications. ... ]OK, this part is simple.Here's where it gets tricky:3.7 Allows for incorporation of the *Covered* *Work* (modified or not) in alarger work. MPL is not a viral license and the larger work can have adifferent license applied to those portions that are not portions of the*Covered* *Work*. However, the *Covered* *Work* (possibly modified) needsto be identified and the licensing of the covered work preserved.You could view this as part of the aggregation provision in the Open SourceLicensing model (and in the GPL). It is not clear that one needs tocontinue to offer the *Covered* *Work* (modifications) as part ofdistribution of a larger work, but it would certainly be necessary if thepackaging were such that the Covered Work were easily separable from thelarger work for separate use. This may just be a place where the MPL isinprecise.6.3 Addresses the derivative work case. Please note that the MPL is *not**viral*, though it is not exactly a BSD-like (or Python-like) licenseeither. 6.3 allows a derivative work to be distributed under a quitedifferent license and there are instructions about how to use the MPLlicense notice with such a work, along with a few simple conditions thatmust be satisfied.Since Komodo is prospectively a derivative work of whatever MPL'd *Covered**Works* they incorporated code from, this is the likely case that applies.The way to tell is to examine the license for Komodo and see how itacknowledges reliance on portions of MPL *Covered* *Works* (as modified) andwhether it independently offers the MPL *Covered* *Works* under the MPL.Here they be sea serpents.-- Dennis-----Original Message-----From:python-list-admin at python.org[mailto:python-list-admin at python.org]On Behalf Of Lulu of theLotus-EatersSent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 14:26To:python-list at cwi.nlSubject: Re: Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License? (fwd)David Ascher (Komodo Tech Lead) in email asked for clarification of whyI thought the Komodo licensing terms violate the MPL. I'd like toclarify for the list, since this IMO is a matter of general concern tothe Python community (David is BCC:'d).The Mozilla Public License seems to live at: <http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html>The chief sections that apparently conflict with Komodo's commerciallicensing terms: 3.1. Application of License.[ ... ]Komodo is available--as far as I can determine--only under asubstantially different license than the MPL. Specifically, theActiveState license imposes many terms that additionally restrict therecipients rights. 3.2. Availability of Source Code. [ ... ]ActiveState does not make source code for their modifications available.That seems pretty staightforward.[ ... ]Yours, Lulu...
More information about the Python-listmailing list
[8]ページ先頭