At 11:11 AM 3/17/00 +1100, Roland Turner wrote:

>Ah. That is an important concern, it is neccessary not only that the
>licensing strategy employed is "safe" for licensees, but that it appear
>to be so.

Right.

>...
>To integrate, they need code to either (i) be under the GPL or (ii) be
>capable of conversion-at-licensee-option. That latter option is offered
>by LGPL and by MPL-1.1-with-GPL-option or MPL-1.1-with-LGPL-option (in
>the latter case, conversion is a two-step process, but you gain the
>ability to achieve LGPL integration also).

I believe that the Mozilla license gives the copyright holder the
right to change the license. My inclination at the moment is to
stick to straight Mozilla and add LGPL to those parts where it's
appropriate when I understand the ramifications better. You've
explained the advantages well.

>I'd propose that contributions only be accepted into the "main"
>source tree if they are offered under the same dual-licensed
>arrangement.

OK. Thank you - I think I do understand now. It is extremely
generous of you - and many others - to take the time to explain
complicated licenses and license interactions so we can make
a good choice. It gives me a very good feeling about joining
the open source community.

Ann