Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> >>The differences between the NPL and MPL are meaningless.
> >
> > Ok, so will Mozilla.org accept patches removing the NPL and replacing it
> > with the MPL+GPL?
>
> Not that meaningless ;-) mozilla.org can't accept these patches from
> anyone but the copyright holder.
>
And the copyright holder in virtually all these cases is who Gerv? My
guess is AOL. What do I win?
>
> >>The one extra right with any oomph is the ability to change the license on
> >>those files without having to get permission from all contributors. We were
> >>planning on taking advantage of that right to convert the files to MPL/GPL
> >>(thereby giving away that power) once the details were worked out.
> >
> > Oh gee, an excuse, how did I not see that one coming. Pray tell, what
> > are these 'details' that need to be 'worked out'?
>
> No-one knows. Because it's a conspiracy.
>
I thought as much.
>
> >>and I doubt switching to
> >>MPL/GPL will encourage a lot more contributions.
>
> I disagree with this - more users, more contributions.
>
> > GPLing or even LGPLing the whole works would directly lead to such
> > patches.
>
> Would you like to take on the work of getting the permission of the
> hundreds of copyright holders?
>
Let's start with one Gerv: AOL.
> Gerv
