Why didn you modify the MPL itself to address GPL and LGPL incompatibility, rather than using a triple license scheme?
Modifying the MPL itself would have taken more time and effort, and the Mozilla project (like other projects) was already making use of a multiple license scheme without apparent problems. Rather than using a triple license, another possible approach would have been to create a new version of the MPL containing language that would explicitly address the GPL (and LGPL) compatibility issue. (The FSF had previously suggested such an approach as one way to address perceived incompatibilities between the MPL and GPL.) However after considering the question we concluded that modifying the MPL would be more time consuming and potentially error prone. Changing the MPL would also potentially affect developers who have adopted the MPL for use with their own code, independently of the Mozilla project. If those developers did not like the new MPL changes then they would have to explicitly use an older version of the MPL, or create their own MPL-based license. (Or, to prevent their having to do thi
Related Questions
- I have found a module or theme in the contributions repository that says it is available under a different license than the GPL (including the LGPL or AGPL). What should I do?
- How can I make a license renewal, apply for a new license, change an address or obtain a duplicate license?
- TWiki has a GPL GNU General Public License . What is GPL?
