Stuart Ballard wrote:
> 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
If MPL had been GPL-compatible, then you could have done the same with
purely MPL covered code.
There is a subtle difference between the GPL fork you are talking about
and the one I am talking about. With an MPL/BSD dual-license my code will
remain under either MPL or BSD, regardless of what the combined software
is released as. With an MPL/GPL dual-license my code can become GPL-only,
which would be against my wishes.
> 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?
There is no benefit per se, and none were intended -- it is all about
legalism. The code was originally released under MPL. Years later the
contact to many of the contributors had been lost, and it was thus
impossible to ask their permission for a change of license to solve
the GPL-incompatibility problem. Instead, section 13 "Multiple-licensed
Code" in MPL 1.1 was used to create a dual-license.
