Re: Is Sun's new license compatible with the MPL?

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>  Vidar Braut Haarr <[email protected]> wrote:
>>MPL: Allows people to take the work (and modify it if they want to) and 
>>sell it without providing the source code.
>
> Nope, you have to publish the modifications you make to MPL'ed source 
> files and to files that contain code copied from MPL'ed source files.

Ah, I just learned something new, thanks :)
Looking at the FAQ, it verifies what you said:
<http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mpl-faq.html>

It's just worth pointing out (even if perhaps implied by your above 
comment):
"New files containing only your code are not Modifications, and not 
covered by the MPL."

So if you add files to an MPL-distributed source, you do not need to 
provide the source to those files (unless it contains code from MPL'ed 
source, like you implicitly stated above).

>>LGPL: Proprietary software can link against the software without 
>>opensourcing their application.
> 
> LGPL is difficult to interpret--especially when applied to languages 
> that don't use C linkage. When people think about using LGPL, it would 
> usually be better to use MPL/GPL dual license.

I agree. Even the FSF urges people not to use LGPL, IIRC.

-- 
Vidar Braut Haarr