*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 21/09/2001 at 10:00 Ben Bucksch wrote:
>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?
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.
>
>>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.
Where a derivative work extending the original code or the original code was just
renamed (renaming source files under the GPL is sufficient to destroy the original
copyright).
>
>>Hmmm, Galeon exists now, they haven't needed any licence change have
>they? Or has it just been ignored?
>>
>The latter.
I thought that was the case. I believe its a mistake not to pursue deliberate
violations of source licencing, re-licencing to regularise a breach is plain cowardice
and a breach of confidence with original contributors.
Simon
