About "or later" in http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

About "or later" in http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

Ricardo Palomares Martí­nez
Hi,

The Spanish-Spain dictionary has been traditionally licensed under GPL
only, so we never tried to bundle it into the binary localized packages.

However, I've just realized, while talking to Cédric apropos KompoZer
dictionaries page, that currently, the Spanish dictionary is
tri-licensed under GPLv3, LGPLv3 and MPL1.1.

I've seen in Mozilla Code Licensing page (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/)
that the tri-license is described as "GPLv2 or later" and "LGPLv2.1 or
later" (besided MPL1.1, of course).

The question is: does that qualify to include it in Mozilla (or, for
that matter, KompoZer) localized binaries? Or is mandatory that the
dictionary is licensed under GPLv2 & LGPLv2.1?

TIA

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About "or later" in http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

timeless-3
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Ricardo Palomares Martí­nez
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> However, I've just realized, while talking to Cédric apropos KompoZer
> dictionaries page, that currently, the Spanish dictionary is
> tri-licensed under GPLv3, LGPLv3 and MPL1.1.
>
> I've seen in Mozilla Code Licensing page (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/)
> that the tri-license is described as "GPLv2 or later" and "LGPLv2.1 or
> later" (besided MPL1.1, of course).
>
> The question is: does that qualify to include it in Mozilla (or, for
> that matter, KompoZer) localized binaries? Or is mandatory that the
> dictionary is licensed under GPLv2 & LGPLv2.1?

I don't speak for mozilla (or my employer, or even myself, and I am
not a lawyer), but GPL3 and friends are not compatible w/ GPL2 and
friends.

When we offer tri licensing, we require everything to be friendly to
all 3 licenses, a GPL3-tri would fail that requirement.

A binary distribution can of course use a single license which
satisfies all requirements of its constituent parts. However,
historically, when we have picked a custom license for binaries people
have yelled and screamed (I certain would be annoyed if you
distributed a Gecko under GPL3 because if you have any edits in it, i
couldn't take them and put them back into upstream).
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About "or later" in http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

Frank Hecker-2
In reply to this post by Ricardo Palomares Martí­nez
Ricardo Palomares Martí­nez wrote:
> The Spanish-Spain dictionary has been traditionally licensed under GPL
> only, so we never tried to bundle it into the binary localized packages.
>
> However, I've just realized, while talking to Cédric apropos KompoZer
> dictionaries page, that currently, the Spanish dictionary is
> tri-licensed under GPLv3, LGPLv3 and MPL1.1.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I agree with timeless on this point: For
compatibility with the Mozilla license scheme, the Spanish dictionary
should use "GPLv2 and later" and "LGPLv2 or later", not GPLv3 and LGPLv3.

IIRC there are several Mozilla-based products that are licensed under
GPLv2 (I think Miro, Songbird, and Flock all use GPLv2), and using only
GPLv3 would cause a problem for them.

Frank


--
Frank Hecker
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal