Ben Bucksch wrote:
> If you are right, then this discussion is mood. Of course, I hope, you
> are wrong. I am so sick of that crap. I am using open-source
> particularily *not* to have to worry about license crap.
Well, that's the basic motivation for using minimal non-copyleft
licenses like the MIT license. However there are in fact some valid
reasons people want to use copyleft licenses at times, and once people
(and projects) begin using copyleft licenses then these issues are bound
to arise.
> You say "public statements". My hope was that you or mitchell know more
> from direct conversation with the FSF. Since this causes so much
> trouble, I would like to hear better reasons than the vague and broad
> statements I heard so far.
I haven't been directly communicating with the FSF on this particular
issue. However I think their position has been pretty clear all along on
what they'd like to see in Mozilla licensing, and what they'd be willing
to accept. In terms of reasoning about the exact nature of GPL/MPL
incompatibilities, I think Dan Veditz has done a good job in his past
posts in terms of identifying points of potential incompatibility.
But, again, I want to emphasize that IMO this is not really an issue of who's "right"
and who's "wrong". It's more about what arrangements can be put in place to allow
Mozilla code to be used by other projects on terms they consider acceptable, while
continuing to allow use of the code on the terms on which it's historically been
available. My personal opinion is that the new licensing scheme does a reasonable job
of doing this; it is not necessarily the best possible resolution one could imagine in
theory, but I think a good approach, and possibly the best approach possible given the
circumstances.
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
