JTK wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, JTK wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Lairo wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This is something i have been wondering too.
> > >>
> > >> I would hate to have put all this effort into Mozilla and then, when
> > >> everything is working great, have some copany come up and say: "we're
> > >> taking this away from you now", or "bgzilla, or whatever structure you
> > >> are using is no longer available".
> > >>
> > >> I'm sure it isn't like that, but some documentation would be nice.
> > >
> > > Oh me too. There's probably a very good reason the code is not release
> > > under the GPL or some other free (not "Open") license.
> >
> > The MPL _is_ a free software license as defined by the free software
> > foundation.
> >
>
> But I can't add GPLed code to it. That doesn't seem very Free to me.
This is true of several free software projects most notably any that use
the freeBSD license. This is more a GP: problem than anything. The fact
that other free licenses exist indicates that GPL quite often fails to
be the best license for a particular project.
> > > Very good for AOL anyway.
> >
> > It's not released exclusively under the GPL because, as you presumably
> > realise, that would make it impossible for AOL to merge the code with
> > their own proprietary, money-making code, and with the proprietary
> > code of your favourite topic, the AIM client.
> >
>
> So then why not the LGPL?
LGPL is for libraries. That does not cut it for the Mozilla project. In
particular, the main application code does not fit in the LGPL
structure.
> > AOL wants to make money, it's a business. If it didn't make money from
> > the Mozilla source code, it wouldn't be funding its development.
>
> I thought AOL made its money from its millions of suckers I mean
> subscribers?
Advertising is also a major source of revenue. There are others. The
Netscape portal is an example. The ads themselves make money and the
click throughs make even more.
> > The
> > GPL would prevent it from being able to make money.
>
> No, it wouldn't.
You are wrong. It would close the door on the best revenue sources from
the browser leaving only crumbs. Many outside developers did not want
the GPL because of similar problems with making money. Many preferred
the freeBSD license as a matter of fact. The MPL is sort of between, in
a way.
> > That's why AOL
> > doesn't use the GPL, as much as I would like it to.
>
> Ok, what about this Ian:
>
> I can't add anything to Mozilla without NPL/MPLing it, fine. As we used
> to say back in the day, "if that chick don't wanna know, forget her".
>
> Furthermore, while AOL can take the Mozilla code, do whatever they so
> choose to it, and release it to the public, I cannot do the same,
> correct?
No. There are limits in the licenses that all who integrate Mozilla into
products must follow. You have not read the licenses or you did not
understand them.
> Ok. So how about I release "Uncle Gair's Olde Tyme Mozilla Helper", a
> set of GPLed (or LGPLed) patches to the Mozilla source, containing no
> original Mozilla code whatsoever. Just add a few pounds of original
> Mozilla source, stir, and build, and you got a Mozilla that's not so
> much of a pig.
You can't. The code you add must be under compatible license. Your
example, actually, infringes on the GPL as well as the MPL. They are not
compatible.
Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
