Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 57759929A for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:18:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 30214 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2012 21:18:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 30054 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2012 21:18:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 30047 invoked by uid 99); 17 Feb 2012 21:18:58 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:18:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.50] (HELO mail-vw0-f50.google.com) (209.85.212.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:18:52 +0000 Received: by vbnl22 with SMTP id l22so3266648vbn.23 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:18:32 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates 10.220.115.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.220.115.133; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates 10.220.115.133 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gstein@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=gstein@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.220.115.133]) by 10.220.115.133 with SMTP id i5mr5971767vcq.11.1329513512175 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:18:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=XWyz/2lwGdXNvkK8z6wM6hfIy6ccccOmIghFFwcUkn8=; b=VfrAlWCAmQ/qQsnB34y6QkWnZ8g/cyiKROWrQaTT/xll65lUcG9SvDsY7XhPAA8LWI DMRo5DjHdXZmuRe3sqXSADb+QMFX3f2iFzlH/KLkjqFvm7d/+8nvGwwAlThJ3Ftnlt4Q nfLb+CirEKKD28g9p+c5alOtiIItiGO0mcvDQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.115.133 with SMTP id i5mr4775922vcq.11.1329513512096; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:18:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.75.17 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:18:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <9854698C-5232-4115-92F1-0674AD9E85DC@apache.org> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:18:32 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: MPL 2.0 From: Greg Stein To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 14:02, Luis Villa wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >> Or... if Benoit is the only contributor to that MPL'd project, then he >> can simply re-release it under the ALv2. >> >> (or if it is a team, then with the agreement of all contributors) >> >> A dual license between MPL2/ALv2 is kinda silly. Since the ALv2 is >> more permissive, then why bother putting MPL2 on there? > > Yes, that's essentially what I was trying to get at with my suggestion > that it start ALv2. > > It feels odd not to recommend MPL, since I basically wrote it, but... > c'est la vie ;) hehehe.... Right license for the job, and all that :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org