Gervase Markham wrote: > > Yes lets forget about intent shall we. Essentially this is a fraud on > > contributors since the original release. > > You assert this intent yet have no evidence. No emails, no newsgroup > posts.
Oh, yes, we do know about the intents of the NPL terms through the Annotated NPL, which is not a legal document, but shows the intentions. IIRC, we had posts by mitchell et al which underlined that. Now, intent probably isn't legally binding in this case, but morally. Which is why I dislike the course of action mozilla.org took with the relicensing. > > then in 6 months time what is the point? Oh yes here is the point, > > AOL will still get use of the codebase protected by the buffer and the > > original copyright. > > 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). > > Personally, if I contribute under a particular set of conditions then > > that is the spirit under which they should be used. I doubt anything > > of mine is in the way of anything though. > > I'm glad you feel that way, and will support the relicensing, which > (as we argue in the FAQ) is definitely in the spirit of the original > licensing. 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). 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.
