Since my name has been invoked :-)
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 20/09/2001 at 13:11 Gervase Markham wrote:
Note that there are at least two folks--Simon Lucy and myself--who
object to specifics in the current proposal for dual licensing (though
not the concept itself)
This is not the case. Let's do a thought experiment:
You have a file of code. You make three copies and put one of the
license header from the MPL, LGPL and GPL on each one. Whenever you make
changes to the file, you update all three copies. If someone wants to
use the file, he picks which
You have the wrong end of the stick. It's not that way round, it's the
other way round - developers who want to combine our code with GPLed
apps. We still aren't letting GPLed code into the tree. For one example
of a group who want to use our code in a GPLed app, see Galeon.
Things like NSPR
JTK wrote:
If we use that permission to change it to plain MPL now we
have given away that right, and then will have to seek permission from
contributors later to change from MPL to MPL/GPL.
However, if you use that right to change them to plain GPL, or even
LGPL, you'll have no need to seek
Christian Biesinger wrote:
JTK wrote:
If we use that permission to change it to plain MPL now we
have given away that right, and then will have to seek permission from
contributors later to change from MPL to MPL/GPL.
However, if you use that right to change them to plain GPL, or even
Doing this would make it illegal to release Netscape 6.something w/o
releasing the sourcecode.
Just a clarification: Netscape does release the source code to the
open-source parts of Netscape 6.
Nope. Not if Mozilla was LGPLed.
If Mozilla were only LGPLed, then this would cause a great
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Gervase Markham wrote:
Nope. Not if Mozilla was LGPLed.
If Mozilla were only LGPLed, then this would cause a great deal of
inconvenience to many of our distributors, who do not wish to refactor
Mozilla into libraries to avoid having to open source code they do not
Ian Hickson wrote:
And before anyone suggests it, licensing MPL/LGPL would be pointless,
since the MPL allows everything the LGPL allows and more
But IMO the MPL does not allow including Mozilla code in an LGPLed
library and distributing the resulting work under the LGPL, at least not
if one
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Frank Hecker wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
And before anyone suggests it, licensing MPL/LGPL would be pointless,
since the MPL allows everything the LGPL allows and more
But IMO the MPL does not allow including Mozilla code in an LGPLed
library and
Ian Hickson wrote:
Why do we care about LGPL projects and not, say, projects using the
original BSD license, the Apache license, the Zope license, the IBM public
license, the Qt public license, the Sun Industry Standards Source License,
etc, etc, etc?
Because nobody has ever claimed that the
Frank, I don't know, if I misunderstood you (late here), so please
excuse possible misunderstandings.
Frank Hecker wrote:
[MPL incompatible with GPL - MPL incompatible with LGPL]
I do not see how it could be compatible with the LGPL; what is
different about the LGPL and the GPL in this
Frank Hecker wrote:
IMO Section 3 was intended for a specific case, a case explicitly
addressed in Section 3: This option [i.e., changing the license
notices] is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the Library
into a program that is not a library. But IMO it's not a
Gervase Markham wrote:
I personally don't see any reason one could not combine code under the
GPL with code under the LGPL, leaving all license notices intact, and
then distribute the resulting work as a whole under GPL terms. To
claim otherwise would seem to imply that doing this
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
The LGPL would also prevent anyone from building Mozilla using MSVC++,
since the MSVC++ redistributables license disallows reverse
engineering, and the LGPL requires that that be allowed.
There're tons of (L)GPLed projects using
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Is there a need (real or perceived) for Mozilla code to be
distributable as an LGPL library?
Yes, for the same reason as to use it under GPL terms: In order to use
it
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Frank Hecker wrote:
Actually I should have said, the LGPL does not allow The MPL
clearly allows MPLed code to be combined with other code and the product
as a whole distributed under non-MPL terms.
This is different than relicensing the code. Both the MPL and the
Ben Bucksch wrote:
My personal opinion is that the GPL was poorly designed, because I think
that this very discussion should never have to happen. The GPL is, IMO,
not as free as other licenses.
Ssshh! The zealots might hear you!
Using the word free in conjunction with the GPL is sure
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Frank Hecker wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Why do we care about LGPL projects and not, say, projects using the
original BSD license, the Apache license, the Zope license, the IBM public
license, the Qt public license, the Sun Industry Standards Source License,
etc, etc,
JTK wrote:
Notes:
- Whoah: is the squeaky wheel finally getting a little grease?!?
Fifty-one FEWER NPLed files this time, 14 MORE MPLed, and 3 more
GPLed. Perhaps the proverbial single step on that journey of 9,640
miles?
I doubt Netscape has any intention of changing NPL files until
Daniel Veditz wrote:
JTK wrote:
Notes:
- Whoah: is the squeaky wheel finally getting a little grease?!?
Fifty-one FEWER NPLed files this time, 14 MORE MPLed, and 3 more
GPLed. Perhaps the proverbial single step on that journey of 9,640
miles?
I doubt Netscape has any
Ah, I can now. And it's more like 70-some. I was looking for Lesser
and not taking crusty old Library into account. Fixed and fixed. But
be it 70 or 0, I still call it negligible.
Actually, only two are straight LGPL - the others are all dually-licensed.
WAIT. You've been telling me for
JTK wrote:
Ok, I give: how can I do it better? What text is in all BSD licenses?
Try keying off the beginning of the permissions granted:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met
This
Oh I have many names Mr. Ross.
Maybe, but only one is your work address ;-)
Blake Ross wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], huh?
Was it a lapse that JTK finally made public his email address? ;-)
Damn, it would have been a better joke had I said 9,640 /files/. Ah
well, live and learn if you're not careful.
That's very cool. I'll remember that.
- Script has been made a bit more discerning at the request of Mr.
Markham, resulting in the new counts for LGPL (none),
That's not true.
RV wrote:
Blake Ross wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], huh?
Was it a lapse that JTK finally made public his email address? ;-)
A Google search could have told you what it was long ago.
Gerv
Blake Ross wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], huh?
Oh I have many names Mr. Ross.
Gervase Markham wrote:
RV wrote:
Was it a lapse that JTK finally made public his email address? ;-)
A Google search could have told you what it was long ago.
That's assuming we cared enough to check in the first place. ;)
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton
JTK wrote:
WAIT. You've been telling me for weeks if not months here that
LGPL-only code is codex non gratia. NOW you tell me that there's LGPL
files in Mozilla?!?!?! What gives?
Not all files in the tree are for the browser suite. Some are testing, debug,
etc. A simple look at the various
Total number of files: 33202
Total number of licensed files: 14393
Total number of NPLed files: 9640
Total number of MPLed files: 4753
Total number of GPLed files: 2047
Total number of LGPLed files:0
Total number of BSD files: 56
Total number of MIT files: 8
JTK wrote:
Total number of files: 33202
Total number of licensed files: 14393
Total number of NPLed files: 9640
Total number of MPLed files: 4753
Total number of GPLed files: 2047
Total number of LGPLed files:0
Total number of BSD files: 56
Total number
Gervase Markham wrote:
JTK wrote:
Total number of files: 33202
Total number of licensed files: 14393
Total number of NPLed files: 9640
Total number of MPLed files: 4753
Total number of GPLed files: 2047
Total number of LGPLed files:0
Total number of
[EMAIL PROTECTED], huh?
JTK wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
JTK wrote:
Total number of files: 33202
Total number of licensed files: 14393
Total number of NPLed files: 9640
Total number of MPLed files: 4753
Total number of GPLed files: 2047
Total number of LGPLed files:
33 matches
Mail list logo
