On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Frank Hecker wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> And before anyone suggests it, licensing MPL/LGPL would be pointless,
>> since the MPL allows everything the LGPL allows and more
>
> But IMO the MPL does not allow including Mozilla code in an LGPLed
> library and distributing the resulting work under the LGPL
More importantly, copyright law doesn't allow that (since that would
involve changing the license terms).
Is there a need (real or perceived) for Mozilla code to be distributable
as an LGPL library? As a user of such a library, why would you want to use
the code as LGPL code rather than MPL code? (Note that the LGPL is more
restrictive than the MPL, which may be why a _distributor_ would want to
do so, but in that case the point is moot since the code already exists
under the less restrictive MPL.)
> I personally don't see any reason one could not combine code under the
> GPL with code under the LGPL, leaving all license notices intact, and
> then distribute the resulting work as a whole under GPL terms.
The GPL and LGPL require each file to carry the correct license. In
particular, the LGPL requires all mention of the LGPL to be changed to GPL
should the license terms be switched from one to the other.
> To claim otherwise would seem to imply that doing this violates the
> terms of either the LGPL or GPL; on what grounds would this be true?
As Gerv said, LGPL section 3, which reads, in part:
# To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License,
# so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version
# 2, instead of to this License.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
/. `- ' ( `--'
`- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
