(This thread has been moved to mozilla-general on the request of JTK
and the people in mozilla-performance.)
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, JTK wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> I have to assume you are feigning stupidity here because you do not
>> seem to be stupid, merely disruptive.
> I thought I was both stupid *and* disruptive! Sheesh will you guys
> pick a lane!
I do not speak for anyone but myself. I have never said you were
stupid, as far as I aware, and I retract such a statement and
apologise for it if I have.
>> I shall, however, try to explain this one more time:
> Why?
Because I felt like it, and thought that maybe if we discussed this,
there was a chance that I could see where either your misunderstanding
lay, or where the flaw in mozilla.org's setup lay.
> Scott just told me it was a "stupid detail". So is it is, or is it
> ain't?
I personally believe that this is very much an important detail, since
it underpins many projects and the work of many people. I cannot speak
for Scott, he may disagree.
>> The organisation called mozilla.org is a group of people, some
>> employed by AOL, some not, who coordinate the development of the
>> product called Mozilla.
>
> Where does the buck stop Mr. Hickson?
A democratic vote of the members of [EMAIL PROTECTED] The complete
list of [EMAIL PROTECTED] members is here:
http://mozilla.org/about.html
>> The product called Mozilla is a free software project which has
>> many contributors, all of which have a say in how the project
>> evolves.
>
> Who makes the final call Mr. Hickson?
Usually the members of [EMAIL PROTECTED] If they cannot agree to an
issue, [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets to override them (since the members of
the drivers group are appointed by [EMAIL PROTECTED]). The complete
list of [EMAIL PROTECTED] members is here:
http://mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html
>> The company called AOL is a large contributor to the Mozilla source
>> (in development terms) and a relatively speaking smaller
>> contributor to the Mozilla QA effort.
>
> "Relatively smaller" as in "none whatsoever, possibly even negative"
> if the Netscape 6 fiasco is any indication.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of how QA behaves. Just because QA
finds a lot of bugs, does not mean management cares. The "Netscape 6
fiasco" was, as has been mentioned many times in this newsgroup and
others, largely forced by the Netscape marketting team. A look at
Bugzilla at the time of the Netscape 6 release will show that
Netscape's QA group was very much actively pointing out the flaws.
>> The product Netscape 6 is a derivative work based in part on the
>> free software product called Mozilla. The parts which are based on
>> Mozilla are freely available to be downloaded (as described in the
>> license to Netscape 6). The parts which are not based on Mozilla
>> but use Mozilla technologies, such as the AIM client, are totally
>> proprietary and their source is not available.
>
> Exactly, so there will never be an AIM client in Mozilla, correct?
Your statement does not logically follow from my statement, no.
If someone writes a free software AIM client and contributes it to
Mozilla, then it is likely to be accepted (the main blocker being code
quality -- all code must pass review and superreview to become part of
the main product). However, this does not stop AOL from blocking this
client *from using their servers* if they decide that it is against
their financial interest to be allowing non-AOL clients to cost them
money (using their servers and connectivity) without giving them a
profit (e.g. through advertising as the AIM and ICQ clients do).
>> AOL, just like IBM, RedHat and the independent contributors, has a
>> say in Mozilla.
> Who has the most say?
AOL probably has the most say, because they are one of the biggest
contributors, code wise. However if the rest of the community wants to
block something AOL wants to do, they can. (In mathematical terms, AOL
probably has less than a 50% say in matters, and so cannot force an
issue without the agreement of at least some other members.)
Of course, in practice, since AOL ends up hiring many of the non-AOL
contributors, the AOL point of view tends to be the same as the
non-AOL point of view.
>> Mozilla is largely covered by the MPL free software license. (Some
>> parts are also covered by the GPL,
>
> Which parts and how? According to the FSF, the MPL and the GPL are
> incompatible.
They are incompatible in that two separate pieces of code, one covered
by the MPL and one covered by the GPL, cannot be compiled together.
However, the same piece of code can quite legally be licensed under
both, a practice known as "dual licensing" and used quite widely in
the industry (e.g., Microsoft has "education licenses" and "business
licenses" that are quite different).
I don't know the exact list of all the MPL/GPL covered parts, but, for
example, Transformiix and the JS engine are dual licensed like this. The
mozilla.org "position" on this is that new code should be put under an
MPL/GPL dual license unless the author has strong reasons to do otherwise.
>> which is not relevant to this discussion, and some parts are
>> instead covered by the NPL, which for these purposes is equivalent
>> to the MPL.
>
> Um, no, for no purposes is it equivalent. As described on
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses:
>
> "The Netscape Public License (NPL) This is a free software license,
> not a strong copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL. It
> consists of the Mozilla Public License with an added clause that
> permits Netscape to use your added code even in their proprietary
> versions of the program. Of course, they do not give you permission
> to use their code in the analogous way. We urge you not to use the
> NPL."
How does this show that they are not equivalent? The NPL *is* the MPL,
but with a single added clause specifically to let AOL use the source
in proprietary code (like the AIM client). When AOL is not involved,
the MPL and the NPL are *identical*. When AOL _is_ involved, they are
equivalent so long as the topic of discussion is the Mozilla project.
Since this is what I was talking about, they are equivalent for "these
purposes", which is exactly what I said.
I do not recommend anyone use the NPL. In fact, nobody recommends that
anyone use the NPL. That is not challenged by anyone.
>> The term Mozilla is not ambiguous,
>
> Sure it is. There's Mozilla the web browser, Mozilla the "platform"
> (snort!),
They are the same.
> Mozilla the movement,
That's mozilla.org, not Mozilla.
> Mozilla the Politburo,
Also mozilla.org, not Mozilla.
> Mozilla the religion...
I am not aware of a Mozilla religion.
>>> and you all go "[...] AOL HAS NO SAY IN MOZILLA!!!"
>> This is also not true.
> Exactly. The truth is that AOL has the final say in every aspect of
> Mozilla.
That is also not true. The world is not made of extremes -- the truth,
here, lies in the middle: AOL has a big say, but by no means the final
say, in the aspects of Mozilla that it cares about.
>> AOL funds a large part of mozilla.org, and has many programmers
>> working on the Mozilla source. AOL has a proportionally large say
>> in Mozilla matters purely because it is so involved in the project.
>> AOL cannot, however, force code into Mozilla that the rest of the
>> community does not want,
>
> Sure it can. XUL is a perfect example.
At the time XUL was invented and that direction was chosen, there were
*significantly* fewer non-AOL contributors. At the time, AOL probably
could have forced anything into Mozilla, yes. Times change.
> And on the flip side, AOL can most certainly keep code *out* of
> Mozilla that the rest of the community *does* want.
Such as? Even a single example?
>> as proved by its several failed attempts.
> Such as? Even a single example?
Bug 88297, bug 58489 and bug 53430 and all examples of this. Some
other "features" have been blocked before they even reach Bugzilla,
and have instead been moved to the Netscape 6 commercial tree,
although I don't think I can talk about these explicitly without
breaking my NDA.
>> However, you even asking for [the AIM code] demonstrates a lack of
>> understanding of the issues... or, more likely, a (successful)
>> attempt at trolling. However, since you deny ever trolling (a
>> denial that has been proved to be a lie), one would have to assume
>> it is the former.
>
> Naha. Still waiting for that Open Source AIM client in Mozilla.
Do you really use AIM that much? What's wrong with IRC? AIM is a
proprietary protocol, while IRC is open. I'm not complaining, mind
you, since the more AIM is used the richer my employer gets and thus
the better I get paid. But I don't understand why it means so much to
you. Have you thought of just using the Netscape commercial releases?
Or are you just using the AIM source as a symbol? A symbol for what?
> Oh, and Hixie, what does any of this have to do with "Re: Startup
> performance & UI Performance idea"? You wouldn't be trying to
> deflect the discussion away from the very real problems with
> Mozilla, would you? Not quite sure how to take your post
> otherwise....
Sorry, I should have updated the summary but forgot. No, I am not
trying to deflect the discussion away from the very real problems in
Mozilla, as demonstrated by my posting on threads relating to these
very real problems. I gain nothing by preventing improvements in
Mozilla. I gain a lot from Mozilla getting better.
You can take my post, like all my other posts, on face value. I mean
what I say and I say what I mean. I am merely trying to either make sure
everyone (including myself) has the same baseline of facts upon which to
build their opinions.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) -> ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
