Not at all. "Cleanup" is intended as making sure everything contained within the scope of the project is licensed correctly.
> Sounds like the GPL is a viable option of the whole shebang.
Yes, I am now inclined to agree in this case that a relicense under a dual or triple license is impractical at best.
> (Your sentence is long enough to become honorary member of the > German language.)
It seems I am better at coding than writing. You have my permission to enter that monstrosity into the run-on sentence hall of fame. :)
Gerv and Thorsten, thank you for your time and comments, they have been very helpful.
Kiril
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Hi,
Please don't use tofu mails. http://www.vranx.de/mail/tofu.html
* Kiril wrote (2004-02-17 15:18):
Then why do you want to use the MPL at all?
There are two primary reasons
1) A cleanup of the license policy of the project is needed
Do you consider the GPL to be unclean?
2) A file by file license is more appropriate for the project.
No problem with the GPL.
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.
Sounds like the GPL is a viable option of the whole shebang.
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 default is that you are not allowed to do anything. The GPL allows you certain things, but not redistribution under a different licence.
(Your sentence is long enough to become honorary member of the German language.)
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.
Nope, because the GPL does not allow redistribution in a mixed licence scenario.
Thorsten
_______________________________________________ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
