MPL2 instead of LGPL

[Roman Gilg]

Hi,

I've read now multiple times about projects replacing their use of
LGPLv3 [1] with MPL2 [2]. I would be interested in what people in the
KDE community think about that.

Examples of such projects are:
* http://wiki.zeromq.org/area:licensing - LGPL v3 with special
exception for static linking (why do KDE frameworks not need this?)
* http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Licensing_FAQ - was
GPL2/LGPL3 dual licensed

The disadvantages of LGPL are to my knowledge:
* LGPLv3 code not copyable to GPL code. [3]
* Usage of C++ templates licensed under LGPLv2.1 not possible or grey
area(?) in proprietary code. [4]
* Proprietary code static linking LGPL code is not practically doable.
[5] See also above ZeroMQ exception.

Now one would think with KDE Frameworks double-licensed under LGPLv2.2
and LGPLv3 at least the first and second disadvantages are eliminated.
But then why did Eigen not make use of this? And what about the static
linking exception? Is this not relevant to KDE Frameworks? And what
other important advantages/disadvantages of LGPL in comparison to MPL2
are there?

Best
Roman

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html
[2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/
[3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility
[4] http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Licensing_FAQ&oldid=1117#But_doesn.27t_the_LGPL_have_issues_with_code_that_is_in_header_files.2C_and_template_libraries.3F
[5] https://stackoverflow.com/q/10130143