Stuart Ballard wrote:
> Under an MPL/BSD dual license, I can do the following:
>
> 1) Download your code
> 2) Elect to use it under the BSD license.
> 3) Modify it (eg by linking in other software, but also potentially by
> just modifying a few trivial lines of code)
> 4) Release my modified version under the GPL.
The fourth (perhaps even the third) step is where your logic breaks
down. I will elaborate below.
> Now, if Joe Developer downloads my modified version, the only rights
> he's given are those of the GPL; even the parts of your code that are
> embodied in mine are only available under the GPL to him. So in a way I
> have changed your code to GPL.
>
> However, in practice, if Joe Developer wants MPL or BSD rights to your
> parts of the code, there's no problem in him downloading the original
> code from you and thereby getting the MPL/BSD rights to that code.
You misunderstand the conditions under which the BSD license grants
you its rights. Although the BSD allows privatization (that is, you
do not have to release your modifications), it does not allow you to
change the license of the code. Quite to the contrary -- the very
first clause of BSD says
<quote>
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
</quote>
The BSD is not the 'carte blanc' many people believe it to be. You
cannot change the license of the BSD covered code into GPL. That is
a clear violation of the BSD. Any modifications that you make to the
BSD covered code, is subject to the BSD. Please note, that I am not
speaking of combined/larger work here (I am pointing this out because
you seem to mix up the terms "Modifications" and "Larger Work" in
your third step above -- see the MPL for a more precise definition).
> 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?
That is a good question, but you have to ask Netscape and Mozilla.org.
