In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian
Hickson says...
>
>On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, JTK wrote:
>> Frank Hecker wrote:
>>> What you list as "GPLed" files are actually under a dual license
>>> (NPL/GPL
>>
>> Not possible AFAIK.
>
>An original author can license his works under as many contradictory
>licences as he wants.
I suppose that's probably correct in general (i.e. in other projects).
> A contributor can contribute patches under as many
>contradictory licenses as he wants, provided the patch contains only new
>code.
Not quite: Provided it is licensed under either the NPL or the MPL.
> If the patch contains old code, then for each of the licenses under
>which the new code is written, one of the original licenses must apply
>(typically that license will either say that the code can be relicensed,
>or it will be a license saying that patches are ok under that license)
>
Again, not quite: *all* of the original licenses (if we restrict our discussion
the NPL, MPL, and GPL) must apply.
>Therefore NPL/GPL is allowed,
Not in Mozilla.
> it's just like having two identical files,
>one under NPL and one under GPL. Similarly, any patches contributed back
>can be thought of as two patches, one under NPL to be applied to the NPL
>file, and one under GPL to be applied to the GPL file.
>
>Of course, IANAL,
Neither am I, but I watch a lot of Matlock. ;-)
> and I might be terribly wrong! :-)
>
>--
>Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
> /. `- ' ( `--'
> `- , ) - > ) \
>irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
>
>
--
Gary "JTK" Van Sickle
