----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Greg Haerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Licensing summary
> On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> > Yes. I think I agree. But I want to be completely clear on David's
> > code. His original code retains his original PDL license. The code
that's
> > included in nano-X and/or MicroWindows is a derivative work, and is not
> > subject to any terms other than his original terms: leave the copyright
> > notice intact.
>
> That's the reason I thought we'd have to move David's code into seperate
> files- because his code wants to go into files with his Public Domain
> license on them, and the new code wants to go into files with the MPL on
> them.
No, I don't think we need to do that. We can do *whatever* we want as long
as the copyright message remains intact, and that includes MPLing, GPLing,
or ThisThatAndTheOtherPLing it.
> > What are the semantics of a "conversion", anyway?
>
> You just redistribute everything under the new license. It would have to
> be a total conversion though, because the GPL wouldn't allow some GPL
> parts and some MPL parts, and I don't think it, or any improvements made
> to the GPLed version could be converted back to MPL without explicit
> permission of the author of the changes.
The whole dual/conversion license scheme is confusing to me.
Regards,
Brad
