JTK wrote:
> Test time and date: Mon Sep 3 17:12:06 2001
> Total number of files: 29228
> Total number of licensed files: 14430
> Total number of NPLed files: 9691
> Total number of MPLed files: 4739
> Total number of GPLed files: 2044
>
> Percent licensed under the NPL: 67%
> Percent of MPL files also GPLed: 43%
>
> Notes:
> Ouch: THIRTY-FOUR NEW NPLED FILES. A measly five new MPLed files.
> And zero new GPLed files. So can it safely be stated that the
> official Mozilla policy is to strongly encourage NPLing all new
> Mozilla commits? Or can somebody explain away the indisputable fact
> that the NPL numbers keep growing while I keep getting told that the
> NPL is 'discouraged'?
>
NPL _is_ MPL just with extra clause to allow Netscape to use the source
code within two year without restriction. I'll say that the original
author of the file would most likely to be from Netscape. Which is
perfectly normal. You can release your contribution as MPL/GPL if you
want, its called protecting self interest.
If I understand correctly Netscape could release their code under MPL +
some other license that cover the extra clause, but thats just making
things more complicated.
There is nothing stopping you use the NPL like how you would use MPL. So
I don't see the reason behind the complant. By the way you never answer
my last post on the same issue.
If you don't like more NPL popuping up more than MPL then contribute
more code than Netscape and license them under MPL. I don't see your
arguement of trying to get Netscape to comply to how you want them to
license the code. Do you see us trying to get linus to MPL his code?
Mike
