On 20/09/2001 at 15:00 Gervase Markham wrote: >This is not the case. Let's do a thought experiment: > >You have a file of code. You make three copies and put one of the >license header from the MPL, LGPL and GPL on each one. Whenever you make >changes to "the file", you update all three copies. If someone wants to >use the file, he picks which copy to use. If you are, for example, >Netscape,
However this is not the case, there are not three files but one. There is no need for any thought experiments all this has been explained and detailed. As there is only one file there is no way to indicate which licence is being used. > >If Netscape's flock of highly paid lawyers thought that there was even >the smallest chance that this change would force them to open source the >COOL components of AIM, which are part of Netscape 6, integrate with the >AOL backend and which are a closely-guarded secret, do you think they >would let it happen? Naturally not. AOL is safe because they for the most part are the primary copyright holder and also have the resources to defend any action. Would AOL indemnify me or any other developer, naturally not. > >There is no way this disjunctive tri-license can have a GPL-ising effect > on your code if you are using the code under the MPL. You indicate >this use by following the license conditions. This is arrant nonsense. You cannot identify which licence is in operation because the existence of the file implies use and the implied use can be any of the possible licences unless there is some actual real evidence to show which licence is in force. I or anyone else would be forced to prove a negative. This is quite simple in code but is practically impossible in law. > > > Although I do notice that the Notice language is still as full of > > holes as before and developers can still legitimately remove the > > GPL/LGPL language for their own uses, > >Yes, I believe that this is possible. Why is this a problem? Its not a problem but as GPL is now the licence of choice contributing back such code is impossible. > > > without of course being able > > to contribute back. > >Given that developers own the copyright on their modifications and can >license them any way they choose, how can they be prevented from >contributing back? Because they cannot licence their code under the GPL. Unless there is a real fork you cannot (this is becoming repetitive I know but it seems to be necessary), identify without the avoidance of doubt which licence the copyright holder also uses. > > > So, what is the point of the NPL/MPL licence now? > >Many commercial companies are using, and will continue to use the code >under these terms. How can they if their contributions are now also licenced under the GPL? You see copyright makes no difference, it doesn't matter that the original author can do as they wish its others who gain rights in this. Making the GPL compulsory means that any GPL licensee of the same code can assume that any file which is identical, has the same licence language, etc, is released under the same conditions for all circumstances, there is nothing to gainsay that. Such a licensee could then reach into the original author's work and claim that other code was also affected by the GPL licence because of the use. The only way not to do this is to have a physical fork, and this is precisely not what you are doing. Simon > >Gerv
