Gervase Markham wrote:
Ian Grigg wrote:
1. Mozilla Foundation is not a utility, nor a public service. It's not a charity nor a group of do-gooders.
It is a non-profit organisation. I don't know if US rules about non-profits require them to have some sort of "public good" element.
Right. That says that Mozilla is not interested in making profits, and therefore doesn't desire to be taxed as a profit maker. The IRS cares not why you are doing stuff, they only care about the money.
Think of it this way - just because MF is a non- profit, this doesn't say that it is a church.
2. There is nothing wrong with the developers deciding to release versions tuned to typical users, and nothing wrong with them also doing the same for "big business / government / military." The policy shouldn't dictate that one way or another.
I don't think it does. The MF can release all sorts of versions should it choose to. But as I understand it, this policy applies to the "end-user" versions currently downloadable from mozilla.org, which we issue press-releases about and try and get our mothers to use.
Perhaps that should be more explicitly made clear.
3. It should be MF's policy to protect developers from the undue influence of businesses, governments, charities, do- gooders and other people who wish to influence the actions of those that do the work.
On the contrary - the MF is very interested in hearing the views of businesses, governments, charities and others - we call them "customers", and take their views into account when making software.
Yep - there's a fine interesting line between views and influence.
4. Who the software is created for is an open question, and it is strictly and definitively answered by the concept of open source - the software is created for anyone who can follow the rules in the licence.
That's two different definitions of the word "for". It's "for" everyone in the sense that anyone is permitted to download and use it. But it doesn't have to be "for" everyone in terms of its target market.
5. If there is a typical user who cannot make security
choices for themselves, that user can always refrain from
using Mozilla, and can always purchase a paid and insured
product from a supplier that looks after them.
Can you name an example of such a supplier today?
Unfortunately, I don't think there are any retail level suppliers of just browsers - presumably Netscape no lists a price. In the business domain, there are many suppliers who will charge by the seat, not specifically for the browser, but for the full security equation. If you ask IBM, you will get a price, no doubt.
Redhat is a parallel here. Once upon a time Linux was free, only. Now, Linux is both free and paid for. Those that want a particular type of configured Linux can hunt around the different suppliers to find one that suits.
Those that download Redhat for free do it on the terms stated, and those that pay for it get a presumably higher level of support. Those that are worried about security and can't configure or otherwise manage their browser themselves can presumably hunt around for a paid OS and get the browser security package that comes with it.
The absence of a retail supplier doesn't change the essential point, however - if Mozilla's purpose in life is not that of being a charity for the provision of security to those who can't do it for themselves it, then it should be careful not to fall into that trap unwittingly. If only so that it doesn't block the arisal of a company that does provide that solution!
iang _______________________________________________ mozilla-crypto mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-crypto
