From Raz:

From Raz:

>- Which open source license will be used? (I assume MPL.)

Yes.

>- If MPL, which version? (I hope 1.1.)

Yes.

>- If 1.1, will the multiple-licensed code provisions be utilised? (I
>hope so.)

They will be intact, but we don't anticipate using them immediately.

>- If so, is LGPL an option?

Interesting question. I'm not entirely sure what the benefits
are.

>Perhaps the situation is still being considered, in that case a clear
>indication of what needs to be achieved first would be appreciated.

We need a license that meets open source standards and the standards
of corporate legal departments. InterBase has an existing user
base. We like them (well, most of them). If we a license that
appears to move their code into open source without their consent,
they will choose a different database.

>Assuming MPL: perhaps the multiple-license provisions haven't been
>considered. If so, I humbly offer my services as advocate of this
>approach. The Mozilla organisation has acknowledged the damage that
>choosing to exclude GPL integration did to Mozilla, notably that the
>highly energetic Gnome developers were excluded by this choice. Indeed,
>the inclusion of the multiple license provisions in MPL-1.1 was
>apparently motivated by this realisation.

Would you elaborate on this? I understand that the Gnome developers
prefer GPL/LGPL ... we've certainly had that argument on this list
and around the Interbase 2000 site. The general (though certainly
not universal) conclusion was that even LGPL would not sit well
with corporate legal departments. There were some who felt that
was a good thing, but ...

If we used multiple-licensing and put out an LGPL version and the
Gnome developers contributed, could we bring their contributions
into the main-line, MPL 1.1 licensed code?


Ann
Power-to-be at Interbase (I hope).