On 20/09/2001 at 14:55 Gervase Markham wrote: >You have the wrong end of the stick. It's not that way round, it's the >other way round - developers who want to combine our code with GPLed >apps. We still aren't letting GPLed code into the tree. For one example >of a group who want to use our code in a GPLed app, see Galeon. >
Umm, you are forcing developers to licence under the GPL, that is letting GPL into the tree. If the point is not to allow GPL code into the tree then I fail to see how contributions will be made back to the tree by those that insist on using the GPL. You are either improving the tree or you are not, you seem to be saying that that isn't the intention. In which case why bother? >Things like NSPR and XPCOM are extremely cool technlogies which would be >of great use to other free software projects, who would not have to >re-implement the portable-runtime and cross-platform component model >wheels. > Licencing under the GPL isn't necessary to achieve this, both NSPR and XCOM can be used as LGPL targets, and without relicencing under LGPL. > > My objections have mostly revolved around the avoidance of doubt. > > If the licence language allows someone to effectively treat a > > source as GPL licenced code then, because of the nature of that > > licence, it affects all uses (anything else is a fork). Not being > > able to specifically identify a particular usage of licence has > > been the crux of my dislike of any attempt to relicence existing > > source. > > > > If the licence language enables someone to categorically for all > > time identify the licence they used > >The only time anyone would ever need to identify the license they used >would be if they are taken to court by one of the copyright holders. At >that point, they would have to be able to say "I am using it under the >XPL and have fulfilled all conditions of the XPL." Until that point, >they would not need to make a determination. That is dangerously ignorant I'm afraid. The whole point of the licence is to identify exactly what is to happen in the case of dispute. Not caring about it at the time of licencing is just irresponsible. And the licences give third parties the right to sue as well as the original copyright holders, in fact they give third parties the right to sue the copyright holders under certain circumstances. This is one of the reasons why the NPL/MPL was such an improvement over the GPL, and why using the GPL is a backwards step. > > > Originally, and some might remember this differently, the NPL > > licence was meant to be a limited to I think three years. > >There is no wording like that in the NPL. Yes lets forget about intent shall we. Essentially this is a fraud on contributors since the original release. > > > If > > clauses within the NPL are being used to relicence by the back door > > and if new files are being licenced as NPL rather than MPL then I > > think this is a breach of faith with mozilla.org. > >As the FAQ clearly states, mozilla.org would like all code in the tree >to be available under MPL, but has not yet secured the necessary >permissions. This is not for want of trying. And will not now happen, there is no need, the tree will degrade quickly into a GPL project with AOL maintaining the fork they already have for the production code. Its no more work than already has to happen. You might say but you have to licence using MPL as well to get into the tree, and yes that's so, but if all these marvellous things are happening in GPLand and they aren;t contributed back (I promise you they won't be), then in 6 months time what is the point? Oh yes here is the point, AOL will still get use of the codebase protected by the buffer and the original copyright. So yes, those that criticise AOL for living off a free source community will have more ammunition. > > > Regardless of the licencing now or in the future I've separately > > come to the conclusion that Mozilla is a dead open source project, > > some products may be produced but I cannot see the quality > > improving in the current climate. > >I'm sorry you feel that way. As you know, others feel differently - if >you do plan to abandon the project, I can only ask that you not withhold >your consent for the re-licensing of your contributions, given that it >will no longer matter to you. I've no idea at the moment what I've contributed to, often patches rot. I do remember cleaning all of the classic style sheets at one point but that work was redone, and poorly at that. Personally, if I contribute under a particular set of conditions then that is the spirit under which they should be used. I doubt anything of mine is in the way of anything though. Simon > >Gerv
