The scenario is a project which is a collection of various scripts/code from different original authors which have been modified to work in conjunction with the project as a whole, in much the same way as Mozilla. The intent/purpose of the re-license is similar to the reasoning behind Mozilla's re-license, the biggest question being and how or what is the best way to approach this. Based on your answers I imagine the steps taken by mozilla.org in their re-license would be the appropriate course of action.
Can a modified version of the original file released under the GPL be re-released under the MPL/GPL dual license without conflict, or would that also fall under the same constraints as the re-license?
For example, a script originally released under the GPL, is modified for the project, then the project/files are released under a dual MPL/GPL license.
If the above is possible, is there a requirement for retaining two distinct license provisions per copyright, or would the combined MPL/GPL be sufficient to cover both. I suspect it's the former and not the latter.
Kiril
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Hi,
* Kiril wrote (2004-02-15 21:39):
What, if any, requirements would be necessary if I were to re-license a script/file released under the GPL to a MPL/GPL dual license other than the appropriate boilerplate?
Approval of the copy right holder.
Since the MPL/GPL dual license gives the option to use the file under the GPL, does the re-license violate the original GPL?
The GPL does not allow for relicence, so you have nothing to give you permission to relicense.
Thorsten
_______________________________________________ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
