Bjorn Reese wrote:
>
> As an example, we have been using MPL for another project, and have
> naturally received requests, similar to those that the Mozilla
> community have received, about re-distributing the project under a
> GPL-compatible license. The disjunctive MPL/GPL dual-license was
> considered and rejected because it would allow the project to become
> GPL-only, which is would be unacceptable to us (the project is used
> in several commercial applications). 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.
Hang on... if you are using MPL/BSD (so long as you mean modified-BSD,
that is, without the advertising clause - which is the only verson
GPL-compatible) then you can still create a GPL fork:
1) Use the program under the terms of the BSD license,
2) Link in some other code that is GPL'd
3) Release the combined software as GPL
The BSD license does not prohibit this, so you're still GPL-forkable but
now you're also BSD-forkable and proprietary-forkable as well!
Also, I don't quite understand the benefit of a MPL/BSD dual license.
Surely everything that is permitted under the MPL is also permitted
under BSD, so MPL/BSD is just equivalent to BSD by itself?
Stuart.
