Daniel Veditz wrote:
[emphasis added]
>
> I should note that I personally am opposed to the specific dual-licensing
> scheme proposed. It doesn't merely fix the GPL compatibility problem, it
> allows a GPL project to make improvements to Mozilla code without sharing
> those changes back (by changing the license of existing files to GPL-only).
> This is a violation of the fundamental idea behind the MPL, and *as far as I
> can tell wholly unnecessary to solve the license **incompatibilities.*
>
> -Dan Veditz
I would be very interested in a proposal that didn't allow a GPL fork
and yet was acceptable to the Free Software Foundation. I have yet to
find one. All my discussions have coome back to the point that the GPL
prohibits the application of any new restrictions. And requiring code
to be licensed under the MPL as well as the GPL is an additional
restriction which causes an incompatibility with the GPL.
I don't like it, it seems lousy to me. At the time we adopted this
system, rms agreed to ask people not to create GPL-only forks. But he
was very clear that this had to be a matter of opersonal choice for
peole using GPL code, and couldn't be required.
I don't think this has changed lately, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
Am I missing something.
>
