You have the wrong end of the stick. It's not that way round, it's the
other way round - developers who want to combine our code with GPLed
apps. We still aren't letting GPLed code into the tree. For one example
of a group who want to use our code in a GPLed app, see Galeon.
Things like NSPR and XPCOM are extremely cool technlogies which would be
of great use to other free software projects, who would not have to
re-implement the portable-runtime and cross-platform component model wheels.
> My objections have mostly revolved around the avoidance of doubt.
> If the licence language allows someone to effectively treat a
> source as GPL licenced code then, because of the nature of that
> licence, it affects all uses (anything else is a fork). Not being
> able to specifically identify a particular usage of licence has
> been the crux of my dislike of any attempt to relicence existing
> source.
>
> If the licence language enables someone to categorically for all
> time identify the licence they used
The only time anyone would ever need to identify the license they used
would be if they are taken to court by one of the copyright holders. At
that point, they would have to be able to say "I am using it under the
XPL and have fulfilled all conditions of the XPL." Until that point,
they would not need to make a determination.
> Originally, and some might remember this differently, the NPL
> licence was meant to be a limited to I think three years.
There is no wording like that in the NPL.
> If
> clauses within the NPL are being used to relicence by the back door
> and if new files are being licenced as NPL rather than MPL then I
> think this is a breach of faith with mozilla.org.
As the FAQ clearly states, mozilla.org would like all code in the tree
to be available under MPL, but has not yet secured the necessary
permissions. This is not for want of trying.
> Regardless of the licencing now or in the future I've separately
> come to the conclusion that Mozilla is a dead open source project,
> some products may be produced but I cannot see the quality
> improving in the current climate.
I'm sorry you feel that way. As you know, others feel differently - if
you do plan to abandon the project, I can only ask that you not withhold
your consent for the re-licensing of your contributions, given that it
will no longer matter to you.
Gerv
