"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
>
> At 11:09 27/12/2000 -0800, Daniel Veditz wrote:
> >
> >I don't believe Netscape promised to relicense the NPL files under the MPL
> >when the code was released; at the time the non-expiring rights in V.3 were
> >important to existing Netscape business deals. Times change, however, and
> >Netscape has subsequently announced its intention to dual license its NPL
> >code, and to switch to the plain MPL as part of that.
>
> Ok, I seem to remember that being the perception, but at this distance
> perception is a dull instrument.
>
> Simon
Anyone with a little foresight could see that it would take only one MPL
file contributed by a non-cooperative owner to make the V.3 rights
essentially meaningless--every such file would have to be re-implemented
(probably in a clean-room) to exercise the V.3 rights on the rest of the
codebase. Perhaps you remember us hackers agreeing that V.3 was of little
practical concern, but the clause was important to the suits :-)
-Dan Veditz
