On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, JTK wrote:
>
> So why the exhortation to "dual license"? Who's trying to kid who
> here?
Nobody is trying to kid anyone -- there has been demand for parts of the
Mozilla code to be under the GPL, for it to be linked with GPL code, for
instance. A dual license would allow that.
>>>> 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?
If all the code was GPL then a distributor could not add proprietary
code to the codebase before redistributing it. For example, the AIM
client in Netscape 6.1 contains proprietary code, if Mozilla was GPL
then Netscpe 6.1 could not have had that AIM client.
> Or more to the point, by allowing me to add my code without giving
> AOL more rights to it than myself?
The MPL does not give any more rights to AOL than to you or me. That
would be the NPL, which nobody is asking you to use for new code.
>>>> 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*.
I'm under NDA so I can't say what where when or how, but believe me,
Netscape-the-browser is most definitely a profitable enterprise for
AOL. If it wasn't, AOL wouldn't be sinking money into it.
> And do you know why that is Chuck? Because most coders don't want to
> work for AOL for free.
And they don't. See my comments above about the MPL vs the NPL. The
MPL does not grant AOL any rights that you don't have.
> 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.
The good ones are hired by AOL, in case you hadn't noticed.
>> 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.
I'm still not sure why though.
>>> 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?
No, not correct. AOL has no more rights than you to MPL code.
>> 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.
Then you are in error. AOL gets no more rights to your MPL code than
anyone else.
>> 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.
Could you please give us a news:// URI for that please? I searched and
searched but could not find the famed post.
The only thing I found was a post from over a year ago correcting you
on the same issues that we are correcting you about today:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3974F6ED.9BB9F278%40microbits.com.au
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
