Gervase Markham wrote: > > AOL needs the COOL code closed because it doesn't want people writing > clients it can't control to access its service.
AOL doesn't even trust Netscape with the source to the COOL components, we get binary drops. > 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 -Dan Veditz
