On 21/09/2001 at 06:28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >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.
Then its not an issue. > >>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. I know, this I don't understand, i don't see how Galeon and Nautilus can go on, yet there's a need to further allow GPL licencing. The only reason I can see for doing this is as a sop to the GPL free software developers in the vain hope that they will contribute back. > >>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. Right I shouldn't always rely on memory.:-). > >>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. Having decided its a dead project for me I'm not proposing to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks. Simon
