Rodrigo Salda�a Z�rate wrote:
> 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?
Yes.
> 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
Then he can either choose to
- offer the modifications to Mozilla under the MPL/GPL dual license and
give it back to the official tree, making it availbale for nearly everybody
- restrict the modifications to the GPL and maintain them by himself
(which is a considerable work)
> 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
huh? how so? Modification to the files have to be published. If there
are new files added, it is not my own code anymore.
The problem you express is exactly the reason why some (cls, IIRC)
object to the MPL/GPL *dual license*.
