>> Anyway, I think it's safe to say that a switch to pure GPL is not on >> the cards. The most likely scheme is an MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-license - >> allow the code to be used by the GPL and LGPL free software >> communities (a good thing) while not shafting all the contributors who >> like using it under the MPL (also a good thing.) > > Note that there are at least two folks--Simon Lucy and myself--who > object to specifics in the current proposal for dual licensing (though > not the concept itself) on the same grounds that GPL zealots dislike > non-GPL licenses. It would allow people to turn the code GPL-only and > keep their improvements to Mozilla files unusable by mozilla.org
We already have this with Javascript and no-one has done it. As I understand it, open source projects avoid code forks by providing good leadership; it's anyone's right to fork the code if they believe the leadership is wrong. If you were planning the relicensing, how would you avoid this problem while still making the code usable in GPLed projects? Gerv
