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

List:       mozilla-license
Subject:    Re: To anyone at Netscape...
From:       Daniel Veditz <dveditz () netscape ! com>
Date:       1998-03-27 18:43:57
[Download RAW message or body]

Pohl Longsine wrote:
> 
> Paul Fisher wrote:
> >
> > find it very odd, given the number of postings on this
> > newsgroup about the NPL/GPL incompatibility problems,
> > that no one from Netscape  has given any input.
> 
> I thought that was an "odd silence" at first too, but then I
> realized that most of the input from foo@netscape.com
> posts has been merely to answer frequently (and infrequently)
> asked questions about whatever version of the draft license
> is most current at the time.
> 
> I don't think any of these people are at liberty to respond to
> RMS in this forum.  They can only take the proposals to
> the higher-ups for consideration.

We *could* respond, but it would only be our personal opinion and
therefore not worth much.  Since my POV has been represented in the
conversation I personally didn't see much point in chipping in (actually
I'm a fence-straddler on this issue), especially since it might be
misinterpreted as an "Official Netscape" pronouncement.  I'm guessing
that the other Netscape employees feel similarly (or are just too sick
of the "GPL is/isn't a virus" wars from the larger 'net to care).

I know the VP and lawyer on the license committee have been in touch
with RMS and other leaders in the free software movement.  They even
asked them for comments on early drafts of the license before they
shared the license internally with employees, and I know RMS sent our VP
a courtesy copy of his first message before he posted it.

I see nearly zero chance that our license would be changed in any such
substantial fashion before 3/31.  My recommendation to the NPL+GPL fans
is that after the source ships you can continue to lobby for a 1.1
license revision, and your best ammunition would be "if the license were
changed I could incorporate X-replacement in my version".  Or even
better "if the license were changed I would contribute X as NPL+GPL
too".

On the other hand, the only thing that stops you from incorporating
mozilla code into a GPL project is that GPL considers our notification
requirements an additional "restriction".  I don't see our execs wanting
to give up the requirement that you credit Netscape if you use our
code.  So you could also lobby RMS to change the GPL to say BSD/NPL-type
notification requirements don't stand in the way of free source and are
acceptable restrictions when combined with GPL code.

I'd guess you have about equal chance going either way.

And in the long run of a componentized mozilla it may not make much
difference since all the various bits will be in stand-alone dynamically
loaded, replaceable modules.  At that point it would seem like you could
mix and match pieces from anywhere with any license.

I guess a good question to ponder along those lines is could you write a
GPL plugin for Netscape Communicator 4.0, and if so could you distribute
it with Netscape Communicator 4.0?  Note that I'm referring to the
current binary-only version of Communicator, not a source version.  It
may also be relevant to note that MSIE supports our plugin API.

-Dan Veditz

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