Mitchell Baker wrote: > The additional language was added so that recipients who receive a file > can be sure they can use it under either license. This may sound silly, > but a lot of those who might use Mozilla, especially companies with due > diligence and risk analysis requirements, look for an explicit statemnt > about the scope of the license they are using.
The language I object to lets people turn the file into GPL only, there is no equivalent permission to turn the file into MPL only. How is this clarifying anything? There is at least one FSF-approved "disjoint" license (the license of Perl) that does not require permission to remove one of the licenses from the file in order to be able to use the code under the license of choice. -Dan Veditz
