Daniel Veditz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Mitchell Baker wrote:The ability to make something GPL only has been an explicit, and consistent requirement of rms for a number of years now. I don't like it either. But it has been the cost of being able to combine code.
The additional language was added so that recipients who receive a file can be sure they can use it under either license. This may sound silly, but a lot of those who might use Mozilla, especially companies with due diligence and risk analysis requirements, look for an explicit statemnt about the scope of the license they are using.
The language I object to lets people turn the file into GPL only, there is no equivalent permission to turn the file into MPL only. How is this clarifying anything?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">And does the FSF accept the idea that someone making changes to such a file is required to allow others to use his or her changes under the Perl license? That the person making changes can't choose to require versions incorporating those changes to be used under the GPL only? I would be surprised (though pleased) if the FSF held this position. My understanding is that if a GPL user is required to allow someone to use code under anything other than the GPL, then this is not compatible, and I did have a set of discussions about this. My guess is that the Perl license is simply silent on this, not that the FSF would accept the interpretation you prefer.
There is at least one FSF-approved "disjoint" license (the license of Perl) that does not require permission to remove one of the licenses from the file in order to be able to use the code under the license of choice.
I'd be happy to be wrong on this.
Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
-Dan Veditz
