Ralph Mellor wrote: > Aiui, the NPL is not a free license.
It might not be approved as such, but why shouldn't it be Free or OSI-compliant? It is essentially the MPL plus some license terms that give Netscape some additional special rights. Those rights are not much different to the GNU's right to issue new GPL licenses and have them apply to code under old licenses. > Aiui, some files in the "Mozilla codebase" are NPL > only. These files are not dual or triple licensed. > > Note here that I am talking about the best possible > view of the situation: if the tip file currently in > CVS is NPL only, I still would not count that as NPL > only if Netscape have already given permission for > that file to be dual/triple licensed so that it is > already really free. IIRC, Netscape allowed all NPL files in Mozilla to be tripple-licences and the CVS tree licenses should reflect that. If they don't, that's a bug. > So, with the above clarification of NPL only, are > any of these NPL only files used in SeaMonkey 1.0? No. (To my understanding) > If not, great. Please just answer yes to the above > and ignore the rest of this email. Well, that "no" doesn't really help you practically. The [L]GPL (your other alternative for these files in that case) doesn't allow to be mixed with the MPL, and we have MPL-only files in the tree. That means, as soon as you compile and distribute Mozilla, you have to decide for either NPL/MPL or GPL or LGPL. The latter 2 ae no options, because there are MPL files. Internal use doesn't matter, because the [L]GPL doesn't care about internal use (dunno about MPL/NPL). I am not a laywer, just my personal understanding. Ben
