On 22/09/2001 at 14:14 Simon P. Lucy wrote: >I'm going to try this one more time. A long while ago I suggested a >mechanism that would allow the multiple licencing of source files whilst >ensuring the avoidance of doubt in any particular use.
And a deafening silence is the result, not even a 'its rubbish go away'. It speaks volumes I think. Ah well, Vale Mozilla Simon > >The problem is that trying to apply the licence choice in each and every >file results in a licence which is ambiguous, the three (or 4) licences >are mutually incompatible and regardless of the merits of any one of the >licences the combination is confusing and confuson in the matter of >agreemments and contracts should be avoided at all times. > >So here is the mechanism. > >All specific licence language is removed from individual files and >replaced with the following wordage, or similar. > >/************************************************************************** >mozilla.org licenced file. This file is licenced under one of the approved >licences as part of the mozilla.org organisation. The actual licence in >force >for this use of the file is contained in the file >mozilla/licence/licence.txt or >mozilla\licence\licence.txt. > >To comply with the mozilla.org approved licence and to allow Modifications >and >Amendments to be accepted by mozilla.org this header must be present and >be intact and identical to mozilla/licence/standardheader.txt or >mozilla\licence\standardheader.txt. Exceptions to this are certain files >which >have a NPL or MPL compatible licence and have been contributed using >a different licence that has been accepted will not have this header. >The current list of files excepted from including the header is in the file >mozilla\licence\exceptions.txt or mozilla/licence/exceptions.txt > >The list of approved licences is in the file >mozilla\licence\approvedlicence.txt or >mozilla\licence\approvedlicence.txt > >A developer may choose a specific licence by setting the appropriate >environment >variable. > >SET MOZ_LICENCE= > >The current list of legitimate values are NPL-MPL,GPL,LGPL,ALL > >Depending upon the value of the environment variable the correct licence >header is >copied to the licence.txt file. Note this indicates the choice made it >may not >wholly comply with anyone licence. For example, to distribute the source >file >under the GPL licence alone the GPL licence language should be included in >every file. > >******************************************************************************************/ > >The ALL licence choice would copy the combined current licence language >for when >moving source trees and repositories. The NPL/MPL would need to be >modified so that >it could be indicated with a single licence file rather than in every >single file but this is a >small modification given the advantage it gives. > >Certainly it doesn't help GPL licencees that would have to add in the GPL >licence language >to every file but then they have to do that with the existing structure as >well. > >The major advantages are, the licence in use is completely without doubt, >the default would >of course be ALL, The complication is really the NPL/MPL dualism since >identifying which >file is NPL and which MPL is a pain. To cope with this the licence.txt >should indicate that >the actual licence is either NPL.h or MPL.h and the file included in the >source file itself. If >its a file which is not preprocessed then the include can be a comment at >the head of the file >the name indicating which licence is in use. This is not ideal but the >same kind of script as >adding the GPL language could also add either NPL or MPL language if >required. > >GPL/LGPL licencees can contribute back without specifically using any >licence so long as the header >was intact and no GPL language was in the file. > >It achieves the stated aim of having the source available to as many as >possible whilst at the same >time controlling mozilla.org's contributors and original developers. > >I'd like serious comment on this. > >Simon
