Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License? (fwd)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

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 that
have been used in building Komodo.  That is, some portion, perhaps
substantial, 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 kick
in without exception:

3.1 License applies to modifications *of* *the* *Covered* *Work*
as you noted

3.2 Source Code must be made available for the modified *Covered* *Work*
under the conditions set forth in the MPL.  There are very definite
conditions on the duration of availability of the source.

3.5 License notices must be included in Source Code of the modified
*Covered* *Work* as specified in the MPL.

3.6 Executable-only distributions can occur and must be accompanied by a
description of how to obtain the source code along with notice of licensing
under the MPL.

It is by virtue of 3.1 that one cannot add additional conditions on the use
or application of the *Covered* *Work* or its modification (that is,
identifying free and commercial classes, withholding source, restricting
redistribution, etc.)  None of that is acceptable with regard to the
*Covered* *Work* or its modifications.

OK, this part is simple.

Here's where it gets tricky:

3.7 Allows for incorporation of the *Covered* *Work* (modified or not) in a
larger work.  MPL is not a viral license and the larger work can have a
different license applied to those portions that are not portions of the
*Covered* *Work*.  However, the *Covered* *Work* (possibly modified) needs
to be identified and the licensing of the covered work preserved.
	You could view this as part of the aggregation provision in the Open Source
Licensing model (and in the GPL).  It is not clear that one needs to
continue to offer the *Covered* *Work* (modifications) as part of
distribution of a larger work, but it would certainly be necessary if the
packaging were such that the Covered Work were easily separable from the
larger work for separate use.  This may just be a place where the MPL is
inprecise.

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) license
either.  6.3 allows a derivative work to be distributed under a quite
different license and there are instructions about how to use the MPL
license notice with such a work, along with a few simple conditions that
must 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 it
acknowledges reliance on portions of MPL *Covered* *Works* (as modified) and
whether 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 the
Lotus-Eaters
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 14:26
To: python-list at cwi.nl
Subject: Re: Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License? (fwd)


David Ascher (Komodo Tech Lead) in email asked for clarification of why
I thought the Komodo licensing terms violate the MPL.  I'd like to
clarify for the list, since this IMO is a matter of general concern to
the 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 commercial
licensing terms:

  3.1. Application of License.
[ ... ]

Komodo is available--as far as I can determine--only under a
substantially different license than the MPL.  Specifically, the
ActiveState license imposes many terms that additionally restrict the
recipients rights.

  3.2. Availability of Source Code.
 [ ... ]

ActiveState does not make source code for their modifications available.
That seems pretty staightforward.

[ ... ]

Yours, Lulu...