Open/Free Licenses (was: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Mark S. Miller (markm@erights.org)
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:04:45 -0700

>At 2:20 PM -0800 10/9/98, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> In the case of Open E <http://www.erights.org>, the choice came down to
>> which license Electric Communities was comfortable with. We ended up
>> with a Mozilla style license.
>>
>>The MPL itself conflicts with the GPL (or with any real copyleft).
>>If your license is like the MPL, that may be true for your license too.
>>
>>So if you are trying to maximize the ways in which this package can be
>>used, how about using a license that allows use with GPL-covered code
>>as well?

Richard, as I'm sure you're aware, this whole maze of license compatibility can initially be quite confusing. What is the nature of the incompatibility between MPL and GPL? My understanding is that MPL is broadly similar to LGPL, but of course, there's no incompatibility between LGPL and GPL. Are there also problems between MPL and LGPL?

Btw, I think I understand what the unit of contagion is with MPL and LGPL -- the source file or linkage unit respectively. I've never been clear about the corresponding issue with GPL.

On a different but related note, is there any worked out legal language a patent holder can use to irrevocably declare that the world can use their patent unrestrictedly? Sort of a "open-patent" or "free-patent" license. The problem I worry about is reliable irrevocability in the absence of an easy-for-a-jury-to-appreciate quid pro quo. The world desperately needs well-known texts for such open/free patent licenses. 

	Thanks in advance for any explanations,
	--MarkM