IANAL
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
> At 14:14 10/04/2001 +0200, Patrick Spingys wrote:
>
>> But why can not
>> everybody who have written code for mozilla give a comment on this parts
>> of code
>
That's not as trivial as it might seem, because there are thousands of
contributors, and it is hard to track down who they are exactly and how
to contact them today.
>> that this parts are licensed under the (L)GPL/NPL/MPL ?
>> And why do you not publish now the new code what you write
>
>> I think it is better, if parts are under an GNU-license then nothing.
>
Yes, I agree. While a GPL project might not be able to use Mozilla as a
whole, it might be able to use parts of it. Some code parts don't
inherently depend on other Mozilla code (apart from XPCOM maybe, and
there are other open-source COM-like implementations), and they might be
reused with smaller changes. In other cases, code snipplets might be
reused. So, I do think that it makes sense to dual-license step by step,
whatever is possible to dual-license at a time.
> Changes to existing files shouldn't change the original licence unless
> the original author and subsequent contributors to that file agree.
s/shouldn't/can't/
> for distributors of the code who wish to combine their own code
> either under their own licence or the MPL and want to have absolute
> certainty as to the licence in force at the time.
I don't see any problem there with the MPL/GPL dual-license, other than
a possible misunderstanding of the side of the distributor.
