nanogui: Re: [linuxce-devel] Re: Microwindows plans
Subject:
Re: [linuxce-devel] Re: Microwindows plans
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
13 Oct 1999 10:34:24 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9910131130200.20199-100000@www.linuxhacker.org>
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote:
> > On 11 Oct 1999, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > As I stated before, I'm willing to relicense BOGL. Is MPL with
> > > convert-to-GPL the license that NanoGUI is definitely under now? If
> > Yes.
> Does that mean that we can freely mix in GPL-only code into the project, or
> do we need dual for that?
Because of the GPL's virus like qualities, you can't mix GPL-only code in
either way without forcing the rest of the code to be taken under the GPL,
at which point what you're doing isn't anything different to converting
the license of everything to GPL anyway. Submissions to the main
NanoGUI/Microwindows/Bogl code base will have to be under the MPL with
convert to GPL option license. I can't see any situation where
dual-license would make any practical difference at all to MPL with
convert to GPL.
--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
