Hi, * Kiril wrote (2004-02-17 16:05): >> 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. > >To explain this a little better. The project can and does contain >original source specifically written for the project, but also contains >other original source (the source in question which would require >permission on a relicense) that was not written specifically for the >project.
Even material written for the project would require a new licence by
the owner of the copy rights.
>Given the above, it would seem the multi license, which the MPL provides
>for, is more appropriate from a development and distribution standpoint
>for the project as a whole since the project is a melting pot of
>contributers, original non-project source, original project source, and
>modified source.
Again, why not the GPL?
Thorsten
--
Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.
- Isaac Asimov
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
