Stuart Ballard wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't have time to go and read the legalese of the MPL right now, but
> I'm surprised that you can do this. Netscape and mozilla.org have been
> trying for ages to dual-license the mozilla code, but they had to get
> permission from all of the contributors and they haven't been able to do
> this yet. How were you able to dual-license the code without permission
> from all the contributors, and why doesn't the same logic apply to
> Netscape and mozilla.org?
Almost same logic does apply in both cases.
There is a clause in the MPL saying that AOL is allowed to update the
license. Nowhere is specified how that update has to look like.
Theoretically, "MPL 1.3" could be equivalent to the BSD license. Thus,
it would be strictly legal for Netscape to just release the whole
NPL/MPL mozilla.org code under the BSD license or a MPL/GPL dual license
or a propriatary license.* If that is morally the right thing is a
completely different question.
*Note that code once released under MPL 1.1 is always still available
under MPL 1.1, independant of any "updates".
Ironically, Bjorn cannot use that clause, because the clause mentions
AOL specifically, not the initial developer. Thus, what Bjorn described
above is illegal, I believe.
I am not a lawyer. Nothing I said here is definitive, it's just my
understanding of the matters.
