Simon P. Lucy wrote: >Mozilla runs on Linux, no user that uses Linux is really going to care about the >source licencing. > They do care, but the MPL is acceptable to most.
>Developers that wish to combine code from GPL may be affected but I've never quite >seen the problem like that. > Galeon. Dunno, how it is solved in Nautilus. >Originally, and some might remember this differently, the NPL licence was meant to be >a limited to I think three years. > V.2 is limited to 2 years. V.3 (which they resort to) doesn't seem to be. >if clauses within the NPL are being used to relicence by the back door > "Back door" is a nice word. >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. > It does improve in some areas, e.g. stability and features. PC magazines are starting to call us a competition to MSIE. 0.9.2.1 is much better than 0.6. We still have serious problem or are getting worse in other areas, like contributor treatment and tree management. I don't mention details here, because it's offtopic. Please ask, if you are interested, and I'll followup to .general.
