>>  >  So from his description it sounds like an attempt
>>  >  at forcing the software into LGPL simply by "injecting" your own LGPL
>>  >  code into it.  Which would, of course, be every bit as reprehensible
>>  >  as the "software mugging" you describe.
>>
>>  If you look at the version history of Swazoo in the Cincom public
>>  Store and at the archive of the Swazoo mailing list you'll see that I
>>  wasn't just injecting a bit of code here and there :-)
> 
> In the theoretical situation I described, the amount of code wouldn't
> matter.  It would be someone contributing a bunch of code under a
> different license and trying to do a "hostile take-over".

You assume that everyone is satisfied with MIT, and that "injecting" 
everything but MIT is considered hostile (oversimplifying -- I grant you 
that).

But some people might disagree with that, especially if they have 
contributed time to a project and would like to get back improvements to 
that project (but not code *using* it).  MIT does not give you that, and 
I can see why Bruce would like his Swazoo code to stay under the license 
he thought Swazoo was being released under.

I don't think I'll have anything else to say on this issue.  Let's 
remember it of an example of how *not* to deal with licensing; probably 
something worse than having to live with a license you don't like.

Paolo