Mozilla Relicensing

bluephone writes: "Today, the bits go into the tree to relicense Mozilla under a triple license, MPL/GPL/LGPL. What this means, for those of you who aren't too up on this stuff, is that when YOU take the code, and make your own product, you now have a triple choice as to what license you want to distribute your code under. Read the FAQ here."

IMPORTANT: we aren't done

[Gerv]

Note: we have only relicensed 6,000 files, using Netscape's ability to relicense files under the NPL. We have a bunch more of those to do (with different comment structure), and then we have to ask permission for the ones covered by the MPL.

This is the very beginning of the process. The story erroneously implies it's finished. It's not.

Gerv

Re:License Question

[Gerv]

Files under those licenses can be combined with GPLed code, so it's not a problem.

Gerv

Re:IMPORTANT: we aren't done

[bluephone]

Yes, I meant to have the word BEGIN after the word bits. It should have read "Today the bits begin to go in..."

Because those are not copyleft licences

[dmoen]

Read the FAQ. Mozilla is not relicensable under the Artistic license, the Python licence, etc, because those other licences are not consistent with the Mozilla project's goals. Quote:

Why didn't you just relicense the Mozilla code under a non-copyleft license (like the MIT or BSD licenses) that would be compatible with all other possible licenses?

Because historically Mozilla code has always been released under some form of copyleft licensing, and we wish to continue to use copyleft provisions to promote sharing of modifications to Mozilla code.

Note that the Mozilla code can be combined with code licenced under many other Open Source licences, like the Python or BSD licences, so there isn't a licence compatibility problem with these licences.