Daniel Veditz wrote:
>
> Michael Hein wrote:
> >
> > Bjorn Reese wrote:
> >
> > > Instead we opted for a MPL/BSD
> > > dual-license. This weakens the copyleft of the project, which is the
> > > the opposite effect of what the FSF wants to achieve -- and the irony
> > > of it all is, that GPL was the direct cause of this shift.
> >
> > Do you mind posting the dual MPL/BSD you used .... the more I learn
> > about GPL this seems quite attractive
>
> Didn't you start the thread asking about converting the NPL'd LDAK code?
> Netscape and mozilla.org specifically rejected the BSD when creating the MPL
> (we were strongly inclined to go with an existing license at the start) and
> Netscape may still be unwilling to release its code under those terms.
In fact, if your motivation is that you're having trouble getting people to
agree to change their LDAP contributions to MPL/GPL, picking MPL/BSD is
unlikely to help. People who accepted the BSD (which allows taking code for
proprietary projects) would be unlikely to object to MPL/GPL unless they are
extreme knee-jerk GPL-haters. BSD-like licenses have a "do whatever you
want" attitude.
The objections I've seen about MPL/GPL (as it is currently formulated) are
that it allows people to fork the code GPL-only without having to share
improvements back. Since BSD would allow the same thing except with an even
broader range of projects I'm sure you'll get at LEAST the same number of
objections. Probably more because at least a GPL fork would still be open
source.
-Dan Veditz
