On 20/09/2001 at 18:55 Gervase Markham wrote: >Sorry, I meant GPL-only code. This is because it cannot be used by the >whole community - i.e. those who are using the code under the MPL or >LGPL may not be able to use it. > > >> 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. > >If the application which wishes to use them is licensed under the GPL, >then they need to be also licensed under the GPL.
Which has no benefit to mozilla.org, therefore I can't see the need. > > >>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. > >Simon, if you continue to abuse me in this manner I will stop this >discourse. It wasn't abuse :-). By ignorant I simply mean unknowing, you must never enter into an agreement, which is what a licence is, without being aware of which agreement and its terms are in force, having three mutually exclusive sets of terms only emphasises it. > > > 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. > >That is not what I said. I'm sure you care very much at the time you >pull Mozilla which terms you intend to use it under, and are very >careful to abide by them. My point is that this information is >completely irrelevant until the exact moment someone sues you. Oy veh. And at that time you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt which licence was in force, if you rely upon usage to determine the licence then you are in a veritable minefield, the only winners being the lawyers. You cannot make it up afterwards. > > > And the licences give third parties the right to sue as well as the > > original copyright holders, > >News to me. Where do they say that? The terms of the GPL give any licensee the same rights to use and the FSF to sue as the copyright holder. > > >>>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. > >You assert this intent yet have no evidence. No emails, no newsgroup posts. There is evidence, I tend not to make these things up. If I get the opportunity then I'll search my archive. > > >>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 > >As mozilla.org will refuse to admit any code into the tree which is not >tri-licensed I fail to see how this could happen. Because the fork will take place. > > > 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), > >That's very pessimistic. And, even if none contributed back (which I >consider to be extremely unlikely - for a start, the Galeon developers >have been very happy to work with us), what skin is it off our nose? >It's a disappointment, certainly, but we'll have assisted in the >creation of some excellent bits of free software. Hmmm, Galeon exists now, they haven't needed any licence change have they? Or has it just been ignored? > > > 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. > >AOL has exactly the same rights (effectively) to the codebase that you do. Well rights schmights, there's really no comparison is there? > > > 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. > >I'm glad you feel that way, and will support the relicensing, which (as >we argue in the FAQ) is definitely in the spirit of the original licensing. Uhhh, you misunderstand, I _don't_ support any relicencing and if I contributed under a licence that didn't include the GPL, I don't see why the usage should change. All I'm saying is that I doubt there is very much of whatever I've contributed but you should not assume that I agree with this at all. The original spirit was specifically not to use the GPL and I consider this a breach of faith with contributors. Simon > >Gerv
