Simon P. Lucy wrote: >you must never enter into an agreement, which is what a licence is, without being >aware of which agreement and its terms are in force, having three mutually exclusive >sets of terms only emphasises it. > If you are so keen to explicitly state which license you use, why not remove the dual license part of the source files you release and state in the About part of your binary that you used the Mozilla code under the MPL/NPL?
>The terms of the GPL give any licensee the same rights to use and the FSF to sue as >the copyright holder. > Which term are you referring to? Actually, in the recent RTLinux case, teh FSF beleived not to be able to sue, IIRC. >Hmmm, Galeon exists now, they haven't needed any licence change have they? Or has it >just been ignored? > The latter.
