> Note that depending on license requirements, such a combination is not > always possible. The answer to your problem may end up being "just don't > use that code, then."
Most, if not all, the contributed original code has been previously licensed under the GPL and per the GPL, redistributed under the GPL.
> Be careful before you go down that road. It took us two and a half years > to get everyone's permission.
Yes, that is a concern.
> You can make your _changes_ available under the dual-license, but not > the original code. Making this fact clear would be very complicated, and > a recipe for confusion.
The way I was going to approach this was to license the modified script under a dual MPL/GPL with the appropriate boilerplate.
Immediately following that, an additional notice stating portions of the script which could be reasonably considered as part of the original script were copyright and licensed per the following notices and copyright. That statement is then followed with the boilerplate from the original script.
I also would provide "along side" access, possibly just on a CVS, to the original source along with the modified version for the sake of comparison if/when someone actually wanted to track those down.
Many of the scripts have been modified to an extent that you would be hard pressed to find similar lines in a difference check, and some files have been created from scratch, but use portions of the original script. In short, 99% of the scripts have been modified to some extent.
I know you cannot give legal advice here, but do you feel the above dual boilerplates gives adequate credit without trampling on the original authors rights?
Kiril
Gervase Markham wrote:
Kiril wrote:
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.
Note that depending on license requirements, such a combination is not always possible. The answer to your problem may end up being "just don't use that code, then."
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.
Be careful before you go down that road. It took us two and a half years to get everyone's permission.
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?
You can make your _changes_ available under the dual-license, but not the original code. Making this fact clear would be very complicated, and a recipe for confusion.
Gerv
_______________________________________________ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
