Mike Lee wrote:
>
> I don't see the signifcant of GPL everything. Only advantage is people
> can link mozilla to GPL program,
>From what folks are telling me here, that's not the case. I've been
told on numerous occaisons that GPLed work cannot be added to Mozilla,
so I don't see how the reverse could possibly work. So the bottom line
is that this dual-licensing is at best a wast of time, at worst a
thinly-veiled ploy to con coders into thinking they're not working for
AOL unpaid.
> but MPL will still be what mozilla is
> distributed as, with GPL as alternative license. Since GPL will
> essentually prevent third-party proprietary plugins.
>
Whatever, I still maintain that LGPLing the whole works solves
everybody's stated problems. But then we got that 2/3rds of the code
that's NPLed, and no intention on AOLs part to change that or accept
changes to it.
> I like MPL, don't know if you agree or not,
I do not.
> but I think its more liberal
> than GPL by far. Heck even NPL is ok with me, if I recall correctly NPL
> is essentually MPL repackaged to allow Netscape within the two year
> period of release not bound to NPL.
>
If AOL wants to have their cake and eat it to, the LGPL allows them to
do that.
> While you poking around the license of individual files, do you want to
> also checkout how many files Netscape contributed to?
>
I don't know how that would be possible the way my script is set up (I'm
working from locally checked-out files, not searching bugzilla or
something). But I would expect they've touched nearly all of them.
> Mike
>
> JTK wrote:
>
> > Test time and date: Fri Aug 31 00:40:44 2001
> > Total number of files: 29142
> > Total number of licensed files: 14391
> > Total number of NPLed files: 9657
> > Total number of MPLed files: 4734
> > Total number of GPLed files: 2044
> >
> > Percent licensed under the NPL: 67%
> > Percent of MPL files also GPLed: 43%
> >
> > Notes:
> > Well no increase in NPL files, that's something I guess. +1 MPLed
> > file, not GPLed. Script is the same, no charts or graphs or change
> > logs yet, sorry.
> >
