Gervase Markham wrote:
> There have been announcements that this is in progress for the last
> year and a half. We are merely coming to technical execution.
I never read until yesterday that you intend to use Netscape special
priviledges. Which is, um, an important detail.
>> I find it somewhat irritating that you now change (NPL code) to the
>> dual license, although my understanding was that you wanted to ask
>> each and every contributor for permission (incl. contributors to NPL
>> code).
>
> I do not know where you got this understanding.
From reading this group.
> Please read the FAQ for the position on this issue.
The FAQ has been uploaded only yesterday.
(And I did read it.)
> The Annotated NPL is _not_ a legal document.
You cutted my additional quotes from the plain license.
> Some people oppose the change.
Who are those?
> Netscape feels it wishes to relicense the code under the NPL, and it
> has the right to do that.
I am not sure about it. Even if it does, it might still not be a good
idea to do without asking, because that is a major change in the license.
>> I understand how difficult and time-intensive it is to get *all*
>> contributors to even *react* at all. But shouldn't you at least make
>> some modest attempt?
>
> the wording which is being used for the permissions email does not
> specify which licenses the code is being relicensed from; therefore
> this objection that people are not being informed would only apply to
> people who have contributed only to NPLed files.
So, you did actually send out permission requests already? When was
that? Because I got none. Maybe I happen not to have contributed to
plain MPL files.
> Eventually, we want people to be able to take and use Mozilla code
> under a single license.
That's already the case, not?
> There is nothing preventing you having a tarball of your code on
> beonex.org with BSD license headers on it.
huh? If you mean that I could fork, then you know very well that it will
bitrott.
