Mitchell Baker wrote:

> Ben Bucksch wrote:
> 
>> Bjorn Reese wrote:
>> 
>>  ><quote>
>>  >  13. MULTIPLE-LICENSED CODE.
>>  >       Initial Developer may designate portions of the Covered Code as
>>  >       'Multiple-Licensed'.  'Multiple-Licensed' means that the 
>> Initial
>>  >       Developer permits you to utilize portions of the Covered 
>> Code under
>>  >       Your choice of the NPL or the alternative licenses, if any, 
>> specified
>>  >       by the Initial Developer in the file described in Exhibit A.
>>  ></quote>
>>  >
>> Uh, if I interptret it your way, it basically means that the Inital
>> Developer can do with the code, including all contributions, whatever he
>> wants.
>> 
>> Was that intended???
>> 
> No, this was not the intent.  The intent was that the Initial 
> Developer  of a piece of code could decide (for example) that s/he 
> wanted people to  be able to use that code under either the MPL or 
> License X.  The Initial  Developer would add  language to the header 
> files naming the MPL and  License X.   If you then make a 
> Modification, the Initial Developer can  use your Modification under 
> either the terms of the MPl or the terms of  License X, but not under 
> any other terms.

But the MPL unfortunately does not specify, *when* the Intital Developer 
allows the alternative license. If, as Bjorn suggests, the Initial 
Developer can do that at any time, this has the effect of what I 
outlined, since License X is also arbitary. It is not even restricted 
that it's always the same License X. As an Initial Developer, I could 
sell the code to my customer A under license X, to customer B under 
license Y etc., even though the code is under the stock MPL 1.1 and I 
didn't ask the contributors about licenses X or Y.

I assumed that the alternative license has to be specified at the same 
time as the MPL begins to apply to a document and that it is virtually 
unchangeable after that (unless all contributors agree, of course).

In any case, I find Bjorn's move questionable, considering that he 
didn't ask contributors for permission and how many people here objected 
the move to change the license (to MPL/GPL in our case).

Reply via email to