At 22:07 05/02/2001 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>embedded browser which is GPL'd.
>However mfcEmbed seems to be NPL'd and I recall these two licenses
>being incompatible.
>
>a) Is that true about being incompatible and
>b) would it make sense to publish the embedding samples under a dual
>license MPL/GPL as it might be likely used by other open source
>projects as well?
a) Pretty much any licence is incompatible with the GPL, copyright holders
may grant exceptions.
b) If its a new project then I'd be interested in why an MPL licence would
be a bad idea for it. If the code/environment that the embedded browser is
going to live in is GPL only then its an implementation fork, which is only
a little worse than a proprietary implementation. There is no return
contribution to mozilla.org and there may actually be a material fork in
the original code. If it can be 'dual licenced' as MPL/GPL then I'd be
interested in why it couldn't be licenced as MPL alone.
But no doubt you will get arguments that say this is exactly why a 'dual
licence should exist. In general my view is to ask first why, if the code
that's wanted is so valuable, the original licence isn't something that
should be respected? If there is a critical mass of code that together
with a piece of Mozilla would create a new product and that critical mass
pre-exists the Mozilla release
>TIA
>Sebastian
=======================================
Not so much a Software Release, more an Escape
S.P.L.
