Simon P. Lucy wrote: >I have said that the only way to use the source is to remove the GPL/LGPL language. >But its not the binary that matters, you have to make sure for all uses. This >effectively still means that I'm estopped from contributing back because I can't >licence using the GPL. > Why not? I can understand that you fear to *use* the GPL in your projects, but why do you fear to *release* your work under GPL, too?
If you want, you can use 2 sets of source: One you get from mozilla.org and you do changes there. If you contribute back, you create patches there. When you compile, you first remove the dual license part. Of course, the precompiler already does that :), so I'd just skip it and compile normally. >I thought that was the case. I believe its a mistake not to pursue deliberate >violations of source licencing, > Well, you can do so. If you have code in the mozilla.org sourse, you have the right to sue, I think. Of course, I don't think, it's a good idea to sue them, as all they want to do is have fun and help the world. >re-licencing to regularise a breach is plain cowardice and a breach of confidence >with original contributors. > It's not cowardice, it's what mozilla.org wants. It wants to be used in projects like Galeon or, say, CrystalSpace (which might want to use XPCOM).
