Re:We Love GPLv3, but Are Switching License to Apache 2.0
by ignoramous on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @02:59PM
(#25363809)
> No, you can't change the license of existing code that you don't hold copyright of...
It's not that simple, see: Modifying and Distributing Files Licensed Under Both the MPL and (L)GPL.
Once an MPL-licensed file has been distributed as part of a larger (L)GPL-licensed work, third parties who receive the file may use and redistribute the file under the terms of either license. As a result, new modifications can be provided to recipients under the terms of both licenses, or solely under the terms of the (L)GPL.
> So if you want copyleft protection, you should go for a strong copyleft license...
True, but MPLv2 with incompatibility clause (or EPLv2) prevents stronger copyleft, which has some nice properties whilst also retaining a weak "file-level" copyleft (which enterprises are okay with).
It's not that simple, see: Modifying and Distributing Files Licensed Under Both the MPL and (L)GPL.
Once an MPL-licensed file has been distributed as part of a larger (L)GPL-licensed work, third parties who receive the file may use and redistribute the file under the terms of either license. As a result, new modifications can be provided to recipients under the terms of both licenses, or solely under the terms of the (L)GPL.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/combining-mpl-and-gpl/
> So if you want copyleft protection, you should go for a strong copyleft license...
True, but MPLv2 with incompatibility clause (or EPLv2) prevents stronger copyleft, which has some nice properties whilst also retaining a weak "file-level" copyleft (which enterprises are okay with).