> A corollary is that if you have multiple files
> under a dual license like
> MPL/GPL then you have to be 100% consistent in
> which license option you
> select for each file: If you elect to use GPL
> terms and conditions for
> one dual licensed file, then you must elect to
> use GPL terms and
> conditions for all the other dual licensed
> files in the same work;
> similarly if you elect to use MPL terms and
> conditions on one file, then
> that forces the same choice for the other dual
> licensed files.
>
> This is why I believe notification requirements
> when using dual licensed
> code are reasonably straightforward: When
> distributing a derived work
> you would simply state that you are using the
> dual licensed Mozilla code
> (all such files) under (say) GPL terms and
> conditions, and then
> accompany that with whatever notices are
> required by the GPL. Or, as the
> alternate case,you would simply state that you
> are using the dual
> licensed Mozilla code (all such files) under
> MPL terms and conditions,
> and then accompany that with whatever notices
> are required by the MPL.
> IMO you don't need to specify file by file
> which option you have chosen.
>
> People redistributing your derived work should
> then retain such notices
> in order to make the licensing clear to
> "downstream" users. (Retention
> of such notices may be required anyway by the
> respective licenses, but I
> don't have time to research that right now.)
I was reading this and thought of something,
wouldn't, say, writing/ammending a file on a X
distribution cause a forking of the whole
Mozilla? would it be needed to trace
contributions made specifically under MPL ONLY or
GPL ONLY, or would the contributing authors have
to conform to the fact that their code has to be
re-dual-licensed in order to make it back into
the 'official' tree?
even worse, if A was working in a Mozilla derived
work under GPL and inserted his/her/it's (for the
FSF) own code in such numbers that taking it back
into the three would require re-coding many
modules, could some GPL prophet (no, I'm not
thinking of RMS here) effectively separate
Mozilla into the 'official tree' and the Official
GPL Tree? or something of the like?
____
In a side note, I'd like to make sure everybody
knows this: been locked out of derivative code
originally your own is a certain possibility in
Mozilla, and MPL was specifically designed to
allow for it, but the good spirits of Netscape
(and some others I understand) make it seem
awfully bad PR for the evil one that tried to
make his own Mozilla (hear that Redmond guys >:)
j/k).
If anyone thinks what I just put under the ___
could be better expressed, by all means let me
know (suggestions are welcome), since it would be
helpful for my graduate thesis :) (which isn't
about Mozilla but touches or rather dwells
lightly on the subject of Software License types
and I have spoken of Mozilla a lot :P)
=====
Sometimes, WE won�t let THEM climb the TREE, WE�re afraid THEY might see the FOREST
By deleting your unwanted E-Mail you waste one keystroke, yet
by throwing away paper mail you waste our planet! SAVE THE
TREES and support internet E-Mail instead of paper mail!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] =^.^= members.xoom.com/MoonDreams
May the �tar Light of the �ailor �couts surround you and protect you
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
