Ian Hickson wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
>>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.
The NPL gives Netscape the right to relicense any specific NPL file under
any other license it wishes. The MPL gives Netscape the ability to update
the license for all MPL code in existence which could then be used under
either the new or old license. This ability should not be used lightly, so
the current approach is to get consent to change the license on individual
files rather than change the MPL itself.
> (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.)
Yes they could, but I don't think even AOL is big enough to withstand the
bad-faith PR they'd get from such a move.
-Dan Veditz
