Gervase Markham wrote:
[Terms of MPL allow AOL to close the source of new revisions.]
> 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.
>>> 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.
I also "did exactly that" (allowing AOL to close-source the MPL and
Mozilla) when contributing to the MPL. Why are you saying that,
* I may not complain about the NPL / GPL relicensing, because I
allowed Netscape to do that,
* while the MPL / closed source relicensing would not happen,
because people would complain (although they did allow AOL to do so)?
(Yes, I did read the FAQ, It says that the GPL is in the spirit of the
NPL. That's not true - the GPL and NPL are very different licenses, the
only common thing is that they are both open-source licenses. BTW - Who
wrote the FAQ?)
