Having seperate MPL and GPL forks is one option. It is what I initially proposed to Netscape more than two years ago. It has all of the problems that you describe (divergent feature sets, lag, etc.).
A better approach is for mozilla.org to maintain a dual-licensed tree. This, I believe, is what is now proposed, much in the same model as has been used for JavaScript, etc.
Speaking for myself, I'm ecstatic. After arguing for dual-licensing until I was blue in the face two years ago, and failing to convince the relevant people, I'd given up on Mozilla. Suddenly, there is new hope. I really hope that they pull it off, without too much code loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Having seperate MPL and GPL forks is one option. It is what I initially proposed to Netscape more than two years ago. It has all of the problems that you describe (divergent feature sets, lag, etc.).
A better approach is for mozilla.org to maintain a dual-licensed tree. This, I believe, is what is now proposed, much in the same model as has been used for JavaScript, etc.
Speaking for myself, I'm ecstatic. After arguing for dual-licensing until I was blue in the face two years ago, and failing to convince the relevant people, I'd given up on Mozilla. Suddenly, there is new hope. I really hope that they pull it off, without too much code loss.
- Raz