>>The differences between the NPL and MPL are meaningless.
>
> Ok, so will Mozilla.org accept patches removing the NPL and replacing it
> with the MPL+GPL?
Not that meaningless ;-) mozilla.org can't accept these patches from
anyone but the copyright holder.
>>The one extra right with any oomph is the ability to change the license on
>>those files without having to get permission from all contributors. We were
>>planning on taking advantage of that right to convert the files to MPL/GPL
>>(thereby giving away that power) once the details were worked out.
>
> Oh gee, an excuse, how did I not see that one coming. Pray tell, what
> are these 'details' that need to be 'worked out'?
No-one knows. Because it's a conspiracy.
>>and I doubt switching to
>>MPL/GPL will encourage a lot more contributions.
I disagree with this - more users, more contributions.
> GPLing or even LGPLing the whole works would directly lead to such
> patches.
Would you like to take on the work of getting the permission of the
hundreds of copyright holders?
Gerv
