Chuck Simmons wrote:
>
> 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.
>
So why the exhortation to "dual license"? Who's trying to kid who here?
> > > > 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.
Eyeuh-oh. Somebody's been out of the loop for a loooong time it seems.
The LGPL is by no means limited to libraries.
> That does not cut it for the Mozilla project. In
> particular, the main application code does not fit in the LGPL
> structure.
>
What "LGPL structure" does it not fit?!?! That's just plain BS; Here,
I'll make Mozilla a library:
int main(...)
{
return MozillaTheLibraryMain(...);
}
There. Now even if the LGPL only applied to libraries, I've eliminated
that concern.
> > > 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.
>
And how would any of that be prevented by GPL or LGPL? Or more to the
point, by allowing me to add my code without giving AOL more rights to
it than myself?
> > > 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.
THERE AREN'T EVEN CRUMBS *NOW*.
And do you know why that is Chuck? Because most coders don't want to
work for AOL for free. Especially the good ones. It's an inverse
relationship actually: the better a coder you are, the less desire you
have to work for AOL for free.
> 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.
>
And yet it apparently prevents me from contributing.
> > > 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.
No what? I can't do the same thing AOL does?
> 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.
>
I am dearly trying to Chuck. All I understand at this point is that
anything I do for Mozilla, AOL effectively gets the rights to.
> > 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.
>
Somebody told me they were. I knew better, and said so at the time. I
was of course promptly shouted down.
