[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-license
Subject:    Re: NPL (only!) is fine for me :-)
From:       Vladimir Alexiev <vladimir () cs ! ualberta ! ca>
Date:       1998-03-24 3:56:03
[Download RAW message or body]

In article <35153751.3BA357A9@netscape.com> Daniel Veditz
<dveditz@netscape.com> writes:

> > I think that the NPL as it is is too good a deal for proprietary
> > developers.
> I agree with you.  I would have preferred that our non-tainting boundary
> require that your Modifications under the NPL compile and run without
> your proprietary feature.

Well, I think that the sensible developers will do just that even if
the NPL doesn't ask them for that. Else their mods won't make it to
the main tree. 

But I had more in mind: something like what's described at
www.public-software.org. They propose to create a pool of public
software that's free for free projects (on GPL terms), but requires a
contribution of either code or money from non-free developers. NPL
already requires a contribution of code, but it's minimal (mods only).
Now, Public Software Inc is a non-profit, and it would be quite a lot
harder for Netscape to justify a price for proprietary developers, and
to determine the exact price. So after all maybe it's best as it is
now.

> Netscape is satisfied that the NPL will allow us to capture the APIs of
> proprietary modifications,

As one said, the NPL is most of all a standard API in reified
(realized) form, and makes a level playing field for an added-value
cottage industry. 

> and if the features are at all interesting the net comunity will
> plug those holes with a freed replacement.

This is a good consideration.

> The page at http://www.public-software.org/licensing/index.html reflects
> the debate we had internally between GPL and BSD style licenses.  The
> NPL was our compromise.

Well, it's more restrictive to proprietary developers than BSD (they
can't sell the source), but still allows them to sell binaries, and
doesn't ask much in return. 

> the page proposes a way for proprietary developers to "opt out" of
> the GPL-ness of the license by paying.

Or contributong software to the pool.

> This is exactly what Netscape was trying to accomplish through the
> hated "section 5".

The reason is that PSI is a non-profit, while Netscape isn't. I'm sure
that all fs people would be very glad if you ask non-free projects to
contribute code to a MPL pool :-).

> Since we got completely roasted for it and everyone tried to think of
> ways around it

Actually no. NPL 0.95 still has it in App.A, it has simply made
non-privileges the default, and if one wants to give Netscape
privileges, they have to specifically stick App.A back.

> I'd be interested to hear how it's working for public-software.org.

I don't think they're earnestly in business yet, but I wouldnt' have a
probelm with them.

> In other words, would developers contribute code back to the Public
> Software Institute (equivalent to listing Netscape as Initial
> Developer under the NPL on their new code)

It's more analogous to assigning copyright to FSF, since it's a
non-profit. 

> or would the PSI be locked out of those GPL'ed modifications?

GPL promises authors that their code won't be used in non-free projects.
PSI proposes to extract some money from non-free projects on behalf of
the authors, and use it to further development of public software.

> If your license is really GPL the developers will have to
> voluntarily and explicitly assign their copyright to the PSI for it
> to be able to sell the next version to proprietary organizations.

No, I think that simply releasing it under the PSI license (by putting
it in the PSI pool) is enough. 

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]