[RESOLVED] Does the same problem not exist by a different name?

Some people in the MPL-using community (as distinct from the Mozilla community) do think of that as a genuine feature, and we did not want to prohibit people from being incompatible in such a case.

But again, note the issue of defaults: in the old license, if your purpose for using MPL was to be GPL incompatible, you could simply use the license, and justify use of the license for other reasons (well drafted, liked file-level copyleft, etc.) Your actual intent would be ambiguous.

In contrast, in 2.0, if you are using the license specifically because you want to be GPL-incompatible, you have to publicly and explicitly choose that behavior. So if that's the behavior you want, great, but you have to come out and say it.