On 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> And you miss an important point -- the LGPL
>> can switch to the GPL easily (and without getting everyone's
>> permission). So there would be very little stress involved. If the MPL
>> had a clause saying it could switch to the GPL, it would be easy for us
>> too. (I understand that such a clause in the NPL is one of the reasons
>> we are considering this at all.)
>
> Actually, such a clause exists, legally, in the MPL, too. Netscape has
> the right to publish new licenses, and source under old licenses are
> available under the new version automatically. Netscape could declare
> the GPL to be MPL version 2.
Good catch, I didn't realise that. Well, this simplifies matters a lot. No
need to ask for everyone's permission. In that case, I wonder why Gerv
alluded to "stress" caused by the proposal to change the license.
(Hmm. They could also declare that MPL version 3 is "Netscape may modify
this code and distribute it without giving away the source". That would be
rather unfortunate, wouldn't it.)
>> Either way, Ben B has made it clear that _he_ would block a move to the
>> GPL, so what Netscape says is rather academic.
>
> No, I specifically said the opposite. Please read back.
My bad, I missed the "not" in your sentence.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
/. `- ' ( `--'
`- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
