Re: license

[jim Bielefeldt]

Karl Berry wrote:
> 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 can 
>
> We 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
>
>   
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.

Jim