On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, JTK wrote:
>
> 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).
I'm just talking about what is possible (as you said it was "not
possible") as opposed to what will be accepted in Mozilla's CVS rep.
>> 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.
In the context of Mozilla, one of the licenses has to be the MPL (unless
otherwise organised, etc). However a contributor can submit patches under
any license (as I wrote in my original message) even if that patch is not
likely to be accepted into the CVS rep.
>> 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.
In Mozilla, yes, for a patch to be accepted all the original licenses must
apply to the patch, otherwise it can't legally be merged in with the CVS
rep (since that would involve changing licenses).
>> Therefore NPL/GPL is allowed,
>
> Not in Mozilla.
I imagine that [EMAIL PROTECTED] would not accept files that were not
under the MPL, right.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
/. `- ' ( `--'
`- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
