>> AOL has exactly the same rights (effectively) to the codebase that you >> do.
> > As we saw in the very last days, this is untrue, if the code is under > the NPL (or even MPL). Sorry, are you complaining that AOL is using its rights to work towards levelling the playing field. When I said "the codebase", I meant as a whole. They can't do nasty proprietary things with it as there are too man > I disgree with the FAQ in that point. As several people (incl. cls and > Simon) have explained here, there are important differences between the > MPL/NPL and the GPL and they were aware of them when contributing and > might not have contributed under conditions of a dual license (the > latter is speculation, but possible). 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. > If you did not already do so, I urge you, Gerv, to read the old > relicensing discussions, because you seem to be doing some of the work > on that. Why read the old ones when I can read exactly the same arguments in the new ones? ;-) Seriously, I did read the old ones at the time.
