On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:45:02AM +0100, Ruair Newman wrote:
> Based on my reading of GPL v2 and MPL v1.1, it seems to me that the only
> significant difference between these two licenses is that MPL disallows
> redistribution of source that has been modified to include GPL'd source.
See section 3.7 - Larger Works - in particular. The Covered Code is code
which is licenced under the MPL. It can be distributed as a Larger Work
with code which is not licenced under the MPL, but the Covered Code is
still licenced under the MPL, and changes to the Covered Code have to be
made available.
Compare and contrast with 2 b) of the GPL v2, which states:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License.
Cheers,
Gary.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
