Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> When I said "the codebase", I meant as a whole. They can't do nasty
>> proprietary things with it as there are too man
>
>
> "...y contributors involved", I assume.
"...y MPLed files in the tree" is actually where I was going. Hmm.
Editor widget woes, I suspect.
> They could do it nevertheless. If somebody dares to sue, AOL just
> defines a new version of the MPL, MPL 1.1a, which has a blacko-cheque
> term similar to the NPL V.3.
This is probably true. However, follow through mentally the results of
this action on PR and contributor terms. Also think about what
developers currently working for Netscape because they get paid to work
on cool Open Source stuff might do.
It's not going to happen.
> [Contributors disagreeing]
>
>> This may be true. In which case, although I would urge them not to,
>> they have the right to refuse to relicense the code over which they
>> hold the copyright. We cannot force them to do so.
>
> You seem to be doing just that with code covered by the NPL.
When people contributed code into a file licensed under the NPL, they
did exactly that. The terms of the license are not a secret.
Gerv
