>On 13/09/2001 at 09:31 Mitchell Baker wrote:
>There are two discussions here. One regards the MPL itself, and its use
>by the mozilla project. The other regards the proposed dual/tri licensing
>with the LGPL and or GPL. The former is an interesting discussion which
>we should continue. But it should not stop us from proceeding with the
>latter. Let's separate these discussions.
>
>The project uses the MPL license. We have permission to allow a
>significant number of files to be used under the L/GPL as well. Let's
>make this happen so that more people can use the code. A good point has
>been raised, maybe we need a tri-license. Either way, dual or tri, let's
>get this done.
>
Have the issues I brought up long in the past all been covered then?
Simon
>Mitchell
>
>Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Daniel Veditz wrote:
>In its attempt to prevent combinations with licenses that might subvert
>the intentions of the GPL it also sometimes prevents combination with
>licenses compatible in spirit like the MPL as a side effect.
>The MPL is *not* compatible in spirit with the GPL, because it allows theuse of
>proprietary code, which is exactly what the GPL is trying to stop.
