OK, now I understand.
I apologize for mozilla.org staff, myself being the primary culprit,
leaving the conversation unfinished. And also for the delay, which
frustrates me as well.
The recent hiatus in discussion does not mean that it's over, or was
irrelevant. It's been on hold while we try to get some of the due
diligence done. As I mentioned, this is taking an unexpected and
unfortunate amount of time. We're waiting for this input in order to be
able to answer the kinds of questions Dan raises below. A final decision
as to the alternatives has not been made. And decision will be clearly
conveyed. And since it's been so long since the initial discussion, we
should have a revised proposal, discussion of the kinds of issues Dan
raises, and a comment time.
I know this isn't a very filling answer; I'll go see if I can make some
progress
Mitchell
Dan Veditz wrote:
> I believe Simon is referring to the fact that a discussion was started on
> the form dual-licensing should take, several major concerns were raised and
> alternatives suggested, and then the discussion just petered out without any
> final comment from mozilla.org folks.
>
> Of the alternatives discussed was there some decision made?
>
> Does the chosen form of GPL-compatibility address the concerns raised? Is
> there a rationale for why unaddressed concerns won't actually be a problem
> for mozilla.org and its contributors? Or arguments that the gains far
> outweigh the concerns, that there is a potential to gain far more
> contributions than we know we will lose? Do we know how much of the codebase
> will have to be re-written in the face of balky contributors? Any estimation
> of PR damage that might hit if some Contributors complain to slashdot et al
> that we've changed the license on them without their consent and therefore
> might do it again to others?
>
> -Dan Veditz
>
> Mitchell Baker wrote:
>
>> I don't understand your comment. We expect this to happen. It's been
>> slower to get everything lined up than we had hoped.
>>
>> mitchell
>>
>> Simon P. Lucy wrote:
>>
>>> At 10:45 09/02/2001 -0800, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. As noted before, we're planning to make as much as possible,
>>>> hopefully all of the Mozilla codebase GPL compatible. We're waiting
>>>> for an OK from a big contributor. I dont' think there's a problem,
>>>> except that it takes forever for this happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> So discussion is over, or rather it never made any difference in the
>>> first place?
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>>> mitchell
>>>>
>>>> Simon P. Lucy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At 02:44 09/02/2001 -0800, Adam J. Richter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am interesting in incorporating a GPL-compatible version
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Mozilla (or something derived from the GPL-compatible parts of
>>>>>> Mozilla)
>>>>>> into our build tree, but it is a bit unclear to me how much, of the
>>>>>> Mozilla been bequeathed with the additional permission to copy
>>>>>> under
>>>>>> the conditions of the GPL at this point. I don't see any news
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> it on the Mozilla web site. I see some notices in the Mozilla 0.7
>>>>>> code.
>>>>>> I am looking for an overview of which components at this point have
>>>>>> been made GPL compatible and whether it is feasible to build a
>>>>>> fully
>>>>>> GPL compatible browser from them at this point. Any information on
>>>>>> this would be appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe so far, other than the odd file, the modules that have the
>>>>> GPL licence language are NSPR, Javascript and LDAP. About the only
>>>>> way you can check absolutely is to grep the tree for the additional
>>>>> language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 4880 Stevens Creek
>>>>>> Blvd, Suite 104
>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / San Jose, California
>>>>>> 95129-1034
>>>>>> +1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of
>>>>>> America
>>>>>> fax +1 408 261-6631 "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ===================================================
>>>>> If I'd known I would spend so much time sorting and rearranging boxes
>>>>> I'd have paid more attention at kindergarten
>>>>>
>>>>> S.P. Lucy
>>>>>
>>> ===================================================
>>> If I'd known I would spend so much time sorting and rearranging boxes
>>> I'd have paid more attention at kindergarten
>>>
>>> S.P. Lucy
>>>
