The interesting thing, David, is that we didn't choose the GPL.
We inherited code from ArsDigita under the GPL, and we played within
that realm. Now ArsDigita is changing the rules.
Also, your claim that the GPL is "intentionally incompatible" is
absolutely false. The GPL came before many of these licenses, so it's
hard to say that it was meant to be incompatible with things like the
MPL. In addition, the new BSD license *and* (I believe) the MPL
license are GPL-compatible in that MPL code can be distributed under
the GPL. However, the ADPL, because it carries a clause very similar
to the original, GPL-incompatible, BSD license, is most probably
incompatible, too.
But let's try not to confuse the issue here with how one markets the
GPL and such, eh? We're here trying to figure out how to coordinate
our development effort. We've been under the GPL for 2 years. We
didn't have a choice, but we're happy about the GPL. Now we're faced
with a brand new license that is *not* the MPL and that is *not* GPL
compatible as best we can tell. Sure, everything's relative, and I can
see how, from the point of view of ArsDigita, OpenACS is moving away
from them. That works only if you assume that ArsDigita is stationary,
though.
Finally, let's also try not to turn this into a licensing flame war.
You think the MPL gives you more freedom; I disagree. But the thing
is, we're not even discussing MPL vs. GPL. We're discussing ADPL vs.
GPL. The ADPL is *NOT* the MPL.
And, no matter what you believe, the facts stand that OpenACS 4.x is
under the GPL, will always be under the GPL (unless you want to track
down and convince > 30 developers), and cannot in any way include
source code from ACS 4.6. Those are the facts. The rest, frankly, is
fluff.
