Ian Hickson wrote:
> And before anyone suggests it, licensing MPL/LGPL would be pointless,
> since the MPL allows everything the LGPL allows and more
But IMO the MPL does not allow including Mozilla code in an LGPLed
library and distributing the resulting work under the LGPL, at least not
if one is concerned about "license compatibility" issues. (If one
accepts the argument that the MPL is in some sense "incompatible" with
the GPL, then I don't understand why it wouldn't also be "incompatible"
with the LGPL as well.)
> 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).
I personally don't see any reason one could not combine code under the
GPL with code under the LGPL, leaving all license notices intact, and
then distribute the resulting work as a whole under GPL terms. To claim
otherwise would seem to imply that doing this violates the terms of
either the LGPL or GPL; on what grounds would this be true?
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
