At 11:09 27/12/2000 -0800, Daniel Veditz wrote:
>"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
> >
> > The licensing was split between Netscape Public
> > Licence and Mozilla Public Licence. The practical difference between them
> > was solely that Netscape was the original contributor in the case of the
> > NPL and someone else in the case of the MPL. The NPL licence release was
> > also made under the proviso that it would expire after two years and be
> > subsequently licenced under the MPL (in practical terms it hasn't
> happened).
>
>The difference between the two is that the NPL gives additional special
>rights to Netscape. The most important of these expired after two years but
>there are still some differences, notably the controversial section V.3 (IV
>is largely irrelevant since we've rewritten nearly everything).
>
>I don't believe Netscape promised to relicense the NPL files under the MPL
>when the code was released; at the time the non-expiring rights in V.3 were
>important to existing Netscape business deals. Times change, however, and
>Netscape has subsequently announced its intention to dual license its NPL
>code, and to switch to the plain MPL as part of that.
Ok, I seem to remember that being the perception, but at this distance
perception is a dull instrument.
Simon
>-Dan Veditz
