On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, JTK wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> 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.
I presume by "it" you mean "Mozilla".
The license preventing you from adding GPL-only code to Mozilla *is
the GPL*, not the MPL. There is nothing (to my knowledge, IANAL, etc)
in the MPL that would prevent you from using another license like the
GPL for your code.
>>> 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?
Equally one could ask, why the LGPL? The LGPL is a weak copyleft
license just like the MPL and is not particularly better in any way.
In fact in my opinion the LGPL is _worse_ than the MPL.
>> 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?
AOL Time Warner is *huge*. They make money from many different
businesses. One of them is the Netscape 6.1 browser.
>> The GPL would prevent it from being able to make money.
> No, it wouldn't.
There is material added to the Mozilla codebase in the creation of the
Netscape browser that cannot, for business reasons, be licensed under
a free software license. For example, licensing it under the MPL would
mean AOL would relinquish certain patent rights that they might not
wish to relinquish, licensing it under the GPL would mean
relinquishing certain parts of the AIM source code that are considered
AOL-confidential (since the GPL is an all-or-nothing deal).
Using the GPL for Mozilla would therefore mean these added components
could not be added to the source tree when Netscape distribute their
version of Mozilla, and since these versions are the money-making
parts, it would prevent them from being able to make money.
This, for a company, is a pretty big downer.
> Ok, what about this Ian:
>
> I can't add anything to Mozilla without NPL/MPLing it, fine.
MPL, please. I would hate to see anyone NPLing new code, that would be
pretty stupid on their part.
> 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. You can do EXACTLY the same as AOL can with the Mozilla source.
(With a few exceptions, namely the parts of the codebase that are
NPLed. Those parts are now a significant minority, and on their own do
not let AOL do anything useful.)
> 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.
That would be legally fine, the only problem would be that the
recipients could never distribute the resulting executable and the
patched source to anyone, as it would be a violation of the GPL to do
so (sections 2b and 7 in particular).
This would pretty much defeat the point of the GPL, which is to ensure
that all free software is kept free, and in particular, that all GPL
software is completely covered by the GPL at all times.
The MPL specifically has the opposite aim: it wants to ensure that MPL
code stays free and under the MPL and that any modifications to said
code that become part of distributed products stay free and under the
MPL, but it does not attempt to cover other code that becomes part of
the executable version of the program (see especially clause 3.7).
This is why I prefer the GPL.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) -> ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
