On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Ricardo Palomares Martínez
<
rpm.PUBLI@...> wrote:
> However, I've just realized, while talking to Cédric apropos KompoZer
> dictionaries page, that currently, the Spanish dictionary is
> tri-licensed under GPLv3, LGPLv3 and MPL1.1.
>
> I've seen in Mozilla Code Licensing page (
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/)
> that the tri-license is described as "GPLv2 or later" and "LGPLv2.1 or
> later" (besided MPL1.1, of course).
>
> The question is: does that qualify to include it in Mozilla (or, for
> that matter, KompoZer) localized binaries? Or is mandatory that the
> dictionary is licensed under GPLv2 & LGPLv2.1?
I don't speak for mozilla (or my employer, or even myself, and I am
not a lawyer), but GPL3 and friends are not compatible w/ GPL2 and
friends.
When we offer tri licensing, we require everything to be friendly to
all 3 licenses, a GPL3-tri would fail that requirement.
A binary distribution can of course use a single license which
satisfies all requirements of its constituent parts. However,
historically, when we have picked a custom license for binaries people
have yelled and screamed (I certain would be annoyed if you
distributed a Gecko under GPL3 because if you have any edits in it, i
couldn't take them and put them back into upstream).
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal@...
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
