Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Do we know how much of the codebase
> > will have to be re-written in the face of balky contributors?
>
> libjpeg, at the very least. libjpeg has been working with a perfectly
> satisfactory BSD-style license since before GPL existed, and I will not
> consider any requests to change its license at this late date.
To repeat what I wrote several months ago:
news://news.mozilla.org/39EDF42A.1A9B9F0C%40collab.net
in response to similar concerns that you expressed at that time, the
intent has been, is, and will be to try and fix whatever GPL
incompatibility issues arose as a result of using the NPL and MPL. There
is no intent to change the licensing of code in the Mozilla tree (like
libjpeg) which is not under the MPL or NPL, but is under some other
license which appears to be compatible with the GPL.
> Now, a BSDish component in a GPLish application is not a problem from
> the point of view of the component's license.
I agree. I have just now again reviewed the libjpeg README file at
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/jpeg/README
which I presume is the "official" document as far as the libjpeg
licensing terms are concerned. Based on the language in the libjpeg
README file, I personally believe that there is no barrier to including
the libjpeg code, under the current libjpeg license, in an application
whose code is otherwise licensed under the GPL.
> just don't start advertising my code as being
> distributed under the GPL, because it ain't.
That is not my intention, nor do I believe it is the intention of
mozilla.org. What was and is being contemplated by mozilla.org is trying
to ensure that the licensing on Mozilla code was such so as to allow
Mozilla and Mozilla components to be included in and distributed with
applications including code under the GPL. That does not and will not
require that all Mozilla code be distributed under the GPL.
Frank
--
Frank Hecker work: http://www.collab.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] home: http://www.hecker.org/
