I believe Simon is referring to the fact that a discussion was started on
the form dual-licensing should take, several major concerns were raised and
alternatives suggested, and then the discussion just petered out without any
final comment from mozilla.org folks.
Of the alternatives discussed was there some decision made?
Does the chosen form of GPL-compatibility address the concerns raised? Is
there a rationale for why unaddressed concerns won't actually be a problem
for mozilla.org and its contributors? Or arguments that the gains far
outweigh the concerns, that there is a potential to gain far more
contributions than we know we will lose? Do we know how much of the codebase
will have to be re-written in the face of balky contributors? Any estimation
of PR damage that might hit if some Contributors complain to slashdot et al
that we've changed the license on them without their consent and therefore
might do it again to others?
-Dan Veditz
Mitchell Baker wrote:
>
> I don't understand your comment. We expect this to happen. It's been
> slower to get everything lined up than we had hoped.
>
> mitchell
>
> Simon P. Lucy wrote:
>
> > At 10:45 09/02/2001 -0800, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. As noted before, we're planning to make as much as possible,
> >> hopefully all of the Mozilla codebase GPL compatible. We're waiting
> >> for an OK from a big contributor. I dont' think there's a problem,
> >> except that it takes forever for this happen.
> >
> >
> > So discussion is over, or rather it never made any difference in the
> > first place?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >> mitchell
> >>
> >> Simon P. Lucy wrote:
> >>
> >> > At 02:44 09/02/2001 -0800, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I am interesting in incorporating a GPL-compatible version
> >> >> of
> >> >> Mozilla (or something derived from the GPL-compatible parts of
> >> >> Mozilla)
> >> >> into our build tree, but it is a bit unclear to me how much, of the
> >> >> Mozilla been bequeathed with the additional permission to copy
> >> >> under
> >> >> the conditions of the GPL at this point. I don't see any news
> >> >> about
> >> >> it on the Mozilla web site. I see some notices in the Mozilla 0.7
> >> >> code.
> >> >> I am looking for an overview of which components at this point have
> >> >> been made GPL compatible and whether it is feasible to build a
> >> >> fully
> >> >> GPL compatible browser from them at this point. Any information on
> >> >> this would be appreciated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I believe so far, other than the odd file, the modules that have the
> >> > GPL licence language are NSPR, Javascript and LDAP. About the only
> >> > way you can check absolutely is to grep the tree for the additional
> >> > language.
> >> >
> >> > Simon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 4880 Stevens Creek
> >> >> Blvd, Suite 104
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / San Jose, California
> >> >> 95129-1034
> >> >> +1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of
> >> >> America
> >> >> fax +1 408 261-6631 "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ===================================================
> >> > If I'd known I would spend so much time sorting and rearranging boxes
> >> > I'd have paid more attention at kindergarten
> >> >
> >> > S.P. Lucy
> >> >
> > ===================================================
> > If I'd known I would spend so much time sorting and rearranging boxes
> > I'd have paid more attention at kindergarten
> >
> > S.P. Lucy
> >
