On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>
>> Nope. Not if Mozilla was LGPLed.
>
> If Mozilla were only LGPLed, then this would cause a great deal of
> inconvenience to many of our distributors, who do not wish to refactor
> Mozilla into libraries to avoid having to open source code they do not
> wish to open source.
The LGPL would also prevent anyone from building Mozilla using MSVC++,
since the MSVC++ redistributables license disallows reverse engineering,
and the LGPL requires that that be allowed.
I see no advantage of licensing Mozilla using the LGPL that isn't also
covered by dual licensing Mozilla using the MPL/GPL. I do, however, see
disadvantages, including the Patent issue that the MPL covers.
And before anyone suggests it, licensing MPL/LGPL would be pointless,
since the MPL allows everything the LGPL allows and more -- MPL/LGPL would
merely be a nuissance to those who want to use it as GPL (since LGPL
allows you to assume the license is the GPL, but requires that you
change every file in the tree to say so).
See also: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
/. `- ' ( `--'
`- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
