SOELL Markus Helmut wrote:
>
> Well, basically the definition seems to be at NPL/II.:
>
> "Netscape Branded Code means Covered Code that Netscape distributes... under
> Netscape trademarks not licensed under the NPL" (paraphrased).
>
> This seems to mean any Netscape distributions and TMs, current and future.
> Since it's in Netscape's discretion to decide what they to apply their TM
> to, they can just apply their TM to all covered code which makes that
> "branded code" is equal "covered code", right?
Hm, is it the trademarks which aren't licensed, or is it the "Covered Code"
which has been re-licensed?
> So why create this new term "branded code"? Talking about "covered code"
> would be more straight forward I think.
"covered code" is general and applies to everyone involved with Mozilla code
under the MPL/NPL. "Netscape Branded Code" is specifically the versions of
covered code that Netscape releases or licenses to others to release under
terms different from the NPL.
> Given this definition of "branded code", It looks like V.3 gives Netscape a
> wildecard, they can do with the entire covered code what ever they want. The
> NPL works for Netscape just like a BSD license, right?
This has been of no practical benefit for years due to the amount of
*Mozilla* Public License code in the product. Yes, Netscape could take the
NPL part of the product and treat it more or less like BSD code (which some
in the company wanted to use in the first place), but at this point that
would be just a big useless pile without the MPL'd parts.
The NPL amendments were designed to get Netscape out of some practical and
political jams when the source code was initially freed; they aren't really
relevant anymore and for the past couple of years Netscape employees have
been encouraged to create new files under the MPL rather than the NPL.
When Netscape first decided to release the source code for "Gromit" (now
known in the tree as "Mozilla Classic") there were three main internal
obstacles to anything copyleft-ish. We relied on some 3rd party libraries
that we didn't have time to replace, yet couldn't get permission to release
(thus amendment IV). We shared code with Netscape's server products
(primarily NSPR and the Javascript engine) and the management of those
divisions fought opening the source if it was going to mean extra work for
them (thus amendment V.2). And we had contractual obligations to license
whatever we shipped to other companies so they could release their own
versions of the browser. They (or their lawyers) balked at trying to figure
out what open source would mean for them, thus amendment V.3 -- although as
you point out V.3 negates the rest of the license as far as Netscape is
concerned.
With the scrapping of MozillaClassic in favor of the current Mozilla
codebase IV became irrelevant. With time (April 2000) V.2 expired. And V.3
was always (IMHO) a red herring to reassure lawyers and managers without any
practical benefit. Or perhaps you can think of it as an incentive to
non-Netscape developers (though I don't know if it was indended to be): as
long as the only contributions were little bug fixes the source was
essentially like a BSD license to Netscape (which some in the company wanted
to use), but once significant chunks of code came from outside then Netscape
would have to play by the copyleft-ish rules of the MPL too.
In an ironic twist, it's the very power granted in V.3 and complained about
since the license was written that will enable us to convert all NPL code to
MPL when the "dual-licensing" details are worked out. But that's another
long thread.
-Dan Veditz
