Ben Bucksch wrote:
> There is a clause in the MPL saying that AOL is allowed to update the
> license. Nowhere is specified how that update has to look like.
That is not the clause I mentioned.
>From the clause that you are referring to, the only part that is of
interest to me in this regard, is section 6.2 "Effect of New Versions"
which allows me to "choose to use such Covered Code under the terms of
any subsequent version of the License".
> Ironically, Bjorn cannot use that clause, because the clause mentions
> AOL specifically, not the initial developer. Thus, what Bjorn described
> above is illegal, I believe.
Here is the clause that I mentioned (from MPL 1.1). It explictly says
the Initial Developer.
<quote>
13. MULTIPLE-LICENSED CODE.
Initial Developer may designate portions of the Covered Code as
'Multiple-Licensed'. 'Multiple-Licensed' means that the Initial
Developer permits you to utilize portions of the Covered Code under
Your choice of the NPL or the alternative licenses, if any, specified
by the Initial Developer in the file described in Exhibit A.
</quote>
