Relicensing - was - meaning of Php.XPath license?

[<elm...@t-...>]

Going into the details you are right, indeed.
They have an easy to understand FAQ 
about all those relicensing issues there:

http://mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html


*** MPL and LGPL are incompatible! ***

Concerning phpXPath and COOL I see three alternative ways to act:

1.) Developing COOL without using phpXPath 
2.) Relicensing phpXPath to such an GPL/LGPL/MPL triple as mozilla uses
3.) "Stealing" phpXPath in a way MPL provides it

Personally I would propose point 2.
I should be no problem to extend the older versions
from MPL to a GPL/LGPL/MPL triple, I think.

For future versions you can decide for GPL or LGPL.
I think MPL is a difficult license and not very clear to understand.
LGPL is backward compatible with GPL, too.

If you are planning relicensing during the next days,
we can use phpXPath for COOL. 
Otherwise we will have decide for point 1 
to get forward with the development. 

I would feel uneasy about the third possibility, 
even if it would show to be a legal way. 
But it is only a way for lawers I think.

Hope you will come to a decision soon

Regards 

Elmar



Francis Fillion wrote:

> As read on the gnu.org site and the mozilla.org site, MPL is 
> incompatible with LGPL. MOzilla use a triple license sheme MPL/GPL/LGPL 
>    so you can use any of those license, so if you use code that is GPL, 
> you can use GPL license and on ...
> 
> 

Elmar Hinz wrote:

 ...

> >"At the moment, parts of the source are available under
> > either the Netscape Public License (NPL)
> > or the Mozilla Public License (MPL),
> > often in combination with either the GNU General Public License (GPL)
> > or the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), or both."
> > 
> >