Re: MPL vs. Other Open Source Licenses

On 2008-12-06 23:33, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> There is nothing that prevent shipping Mozilla code (MPL/LGPL/GPL
> tri-license) and BSD-licensed code in the same package.

I never said this is not possible.

> No complicated explanation of license terms is necessary.

It may not be required outright, but this is a high priority homework to 
do before releasing anything. It is true that Mozilla source code 
licenses are diverse. If someone is interested in details, 'copyright' 
file found in Debian packages (36180 bytes) is the most detailed 
exploration I know.

Back to the point, Greg says they distribute XULRunner inside their 
package. They have all the rights to do that, but if they need to 
describe their license, it cannot be *just* 'BSD'. They cannot claim 
they distribute a BSD XULRunner. So they need to say something like 'BSD 
  for our code + Mozilla tri-license for Mozilla code'. On contrast, I 
just say 'GPL'.

This comment is posted in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT 
ANY WARRANTY to the extent permitted by law; without even the implied 
warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE

-- 
Sergey Yanovich