andkonDOTcom wrote: > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >news:<b0geso$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > >>andkonDOTcom wrote: >> >>>http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/ >>> >>>Okay read specifically the section "Netscape Fraud" where I ramble >>>about the Netscape license. I understand the Netscape License to mean >>>that they do not have to release some part of modified code as open >>>source. >> >>It means if Netscape, for example, included the JavaScript engine in a >>server product, they would not have to open source any part of that >>server product. >> >>However, the NPL exceptions have no real impact on Mozilla development >>today, because there is so much MPLed code in the tree that Netscape >>would probably have great difficulty extracting a large enough NPLed >>piece to be useful in something else. >> > > > It's not the technical implications but the legality of it. I can't > just drive thru the red light because no cars are coming. As such, > Netscape should include its open source code. However, it seems from > the Netscape 1.1 license that Netscape for some magical reason does > not have to obey this.
Netscape developed the NPL and MPL licenses in parallel. Code originally donated by Netscape got the Netscape PL, and the MPL was for use by non-Netscape contributors who didn't particularly want to give Netscape special rights. Netscape did not simply change the license on Mozilla code, no one but the author can change the license on previously donated code. In fact, Netscape authorised mozilla.org to change the license of the code it authored from NPL to MPL after the two year special rights clause expired, and Netscape employees are instructed to apply the Mozilla license to new files rather than the Netscape license. This is the reverse of what your site appears to believe. -Dan Veditz
