Reading the re-licensing web pages and FAQs etc., it is my unterstanding that the triple license approach has been chosen to allow mozilla code to used in GPLed Larger Works. Has this already happened many times? Just thinking through a little example, I guess I am either confused or I get concerned.
Scenario: i) Initial Developer (ID) develops OriginalCode.C and triple licenses it with MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1. ii) Contributor G applies Modification 1 and creates a ContributorVersionGPL.C with it, licenses it with GPL and includes it in her GPL Larger Work. iii) Contributor T applies Modification 2 and creates a ContributorVersionTRI.a.C, stays with the triple license, and includes it in a Larger published Work with an arbitrary license in compliance with MPL 1.1/clause 3.7 iv) T now finds out that ContributorVersionTRI.C could benefit from some parts of Modification 1 as well. Now my questions: 1) I guess T does not have the right to just take "parts of Modifications 1" into a ContributorVersionTRI.b.C and distribute with the LargerWorkArbLicensed. 2) Can G help T doing so? 3) Or is there a timing/rigidity issue? Should G first publish her modifications under the less rigid license (i.e. the triple license) in the same repository as ID published OriginalCode.C and only then proceed to step ii) with the more restrictive GPL? 4) Or in more in genereal: How would a court deal with an author who grants multiple licenses to the public that are possibly conflicting? Any feedback would be highly appreciated! Ralf
