There are two primary reasons
1) A cleanup of the license policy of the project is needed
2) A file by file license is more appropriate for the project.
There are few classes which were initially released under the LGPL, some source that is of unknown origin (originally created for the project is most likely), new original source files get contributed, new original modifications to existing source get contributed, new non-original modifications get contributed, etc.... In short, it's very similar to the Mozilla structure of contributions as is described in the Mozilla license policy.
> You can't do that - because it's applying a new license to code you have > not written.
OK, this is where I get confused.
If the code has been modified from the original code in a manner that makes it specific to the project, or a new, mostly original, source file is created that contains parts of another original source file, and then a license (MPL/GPL/ and possibly LGPL) is applied to the file that pertains to the project as a whole, how is it a new license with respect to the original code when the end user has the option of using the modified code (in whole or part of) under the license the original source was distributed with?
The end user still has the option of using the relevant original source under the terms it was originally released under, however the project as a whole is licensed under the MPL.
Kiril
Gervase Markham wrote:
Kiril wrote:
> 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.
Then why do you want to use the MPL at all?
> 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.
You can't do that - because it's applying a new license to code you have not written.
Gerv
_______________________________________________ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
