Ian Hickson wrote: > On 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote: > > Incidentally, the Flash issue seems to me to be a red herring. If, as an > end user, I obtain a copy of a GPLed version of Mozilla, and a copy of the > proprietary Flash plugin, then the GPL does not stop me from doing > whatever I want with the GPLed code, *so long as I don't redistribute it* > without following the license. > > The only case that would be a problem is distributing the proprietary > plugin with the GPLed Mozilla with the intent of using the whole as a > Flash renderer. In practice, I see no one doing that.
This is *exactly* what Netscape does, ship Mozilla with Flash. >>That's exactly my point - allowing other projects to use our code. > > That may be your point, but it is not my point, which is to ensure my > freedom to do what I like with the code. You *can* do whatever you want with the code. You may not be able to do much with what someone *else* has done with the code, but you don't have to use their version. > That depends on what your goal is. Yours, as I understand it, is to spread > the source code as much as possible, for whatever reason. (I don't see why > this is a good or bad thing.) > > Mine is to increase freedom. Whether the source is used by one person or > many does not really matter. > > This is explained better than I could here: > > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WillYouMakeAnException > > : Maximizing the number of users is not our aim. Rather, we are trying to > : give the crucial freedoms to as many users as possible. In general, > : proprietary software projects hinder rather than help the cause of > : freedom. Maximizing the number of users, however, *was* a goal of Netscape when they opened the source and created the Mozilla project in the first place. If the Mozilla marketshare goes below a certain point MS can successfully "embrace and extend" web standards and make Netscape and any other browser irrelevant. Some people claim we are there already. >>Are you saying that LGPL code is not "free"? > > It's not strong copyleft. It is free as much as the MPL is free -- end > users are free to do what they like, but the license does not stop people > from using non-free software in conjunction with the free code. True, and javascript is different from C++ and perl. Are you going to argue that we should stick to a single programming language, or can you admit that likewise different licenses might be preferable in different situations? (Just that question please. Once answered we can then argue what's best in *this* situation.) > As an author of free software, I am against people taking my code and > using it with code that they are not making free. The GPL protects me > against that; other licenses typically do not. Again, true. The GPL is a great license for projects that want or need to defend against incorporation into non-free projects, especially volunteer projects worried about parasites profiting from their hard work. But in the Mozilla case your Modifications are additions to a vast bulk of existing code donated for your use by a commercial entity. >>I don't speak less about proprietary environments, but other open source >>environments, like the MPL, LGPL etc etc.. > > But the only reason to use those environments instead of the GPL is to > allow the use of proprietary code!! Yes, which is appropriate or even required in some situations. -Dan Veditz
