Ian Hickson wrote: >Give me one reason why Netscape could not do this while simultaneously >promoting free software using the GPL. (Please read my last post before >saying "the COOL components" and the post before that before saying >"Flash" or "RealPlayer".) > You said "*so long as I don't redistribute it* without following the license." Netscape does redistribute Flash and RealPlayer, and won't stop doing so in the near future.
>And you miss an important point -- the LGPL >can switch to the GPL easily (and without getting everyone's permission). >So there would be very little stress involved. If the MPL had a clause >saying it could switch to the GPL, it would be easy for us too. (I >understand that such a clause in the NPL is one of the reasons we are >considering this at all.) > Actually, such a clause exists, legally, in the MPL, too. Netscape has the right to publish new licenses, and source under old licenses are available under the new version automatically. Netscape could declare the GPL to be MPL version 2. Of course, quite a few people would understandably be pissed off. Not too much difference to an LGPL project here. >Either way, Ben B has made it clear that _he_ would block a move to the >GPL, so what Netscape says is rather academic. > No, I specifically said the opposite. Please read back.
