|
From: | jim Bielefeldt |
Subject: | Re: license |
Date: | Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:29:58 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060922) |
Karl Berry wrote:
Sure, according to the MPL section 3.6, and I had a email exchange with Gerv about it. Anyone can compile the code and change the license on the binaries to whatever license they want to. Swiftfox did it. They simply took the Firefox code, compiled it without adding anything, and released the binaries under the Swiftfox license that restricts redistribution. From what I understand it is also possible to make whats called a "larger work". I'm not sure exactly what that means. But you could make the source you add to that to be covered under any license you choose. Like the gpl. That would stop someone from taking the code and possibly making non free binaries from it.Hi Jim,It seems a lot faster than Firefix to me.I'm glad, although I don't know why that should be :).http://gnuzilla.gnu.org/download/ doesn't have a license file that I canWe are keeping the mozilla tri-licensing, because we want and hope any code we write to be picked up by them. I'll add something explicit to README.ICEWEASEL about it. Do you expect that someone may do a Swiftfox on the project? I guess if it's possible with the original mozilla, it'll be possible with gnuzilla. I know the MPL allows it, but with the tri-licensing, do they really get to pick and choose which license terms to follow? Did the mozilla foundation have anything to say about it? Or is Iceweasel going to be a "larger work"? Sorry, apparently I'm not as familiar with all the mozilla licensing bits as you -- can you tell me what you're referring to here? Best, Karl
Jim
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |