In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gervase Markham says...
>
>>>Not that meaningless ;-) mozilla.org can't accept these patches from
>>>anyone but the copyright holder.
>>
>> And the copyright holder in virtually all these cases is who Gerv? My
>> guess is AOL. What do I win?
>
>
>Actually, the copyright holder is whoever checked into the files.
Whoever "checked into" the files? That doesn't make any sense Gerv. Do you
mean whoever "checked *in*" the files? That also doesn't seem to make much
sense; are you telling me that every Joe Blow who submits a one-liner not only
is given full CVS access, but copyright to the file he edited as well?
> Because of the contract they sign, the copyright in Netscape employees work rests
>with Netscape,
Standard practice, so no problem there.
> but when your first patch is checked in, you own the copyright on that small bit of
>code.
No you don't. If it's an NPLed file, Netscape gets the copyright.
>>>>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?
>>
>> Let's start with one Gerv: AOL.
>
>That's the easy one. It's the 499 others that are the trick.
>
>Gerv
Gerv, yes, no, or we don't want to tell the suckers I mean public: Is there or
is there not a plan in place to relicense the 2/3 of Mozilla which is currently
NPLed to the marginally-better MPL+GPL licensing scheme?
If yes, we both know it could be done in a few hours with a simple
shell/sed/awk/perl/whatever script. Hell, I'll even write it! Just give me the
goahead!
If no, well, that 2/3rds majority speaks for itself, doesn't it?
--
Gary "JTK" Van Sickle
