[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: off topic - netscape public license






On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, guy keren wrote:

> now i wonder what are the actual implications of this part of the
> license:
> 
> 1. netscape itself may override the terms of its public license?
> 2. netscape may take code i (or anyone) wrote, and use it in its
>  own products (such as the netscape navigator, professional edition),
>  and make further work on top of this code?

Netscape made a big point of the significance of quality control of
contributed code, which was part of the reason the code must be
contributed to NEtscape in the frist place, rather than than having people
just distribute their versions anyway they like.

This clause puts this in a new perspective. I agree with your
interpretation, although one would have to look and see if there are other
portion pertaining to either this section or the one it takes exception
to.

Had they only stated that they can use the code in other products, the
question of further work on the code could have stayed open. On one hand,
they never commited to keep any code but Communicator's code free, OTOH,
there is an implied obligation. It's the added language that makes it
sticks, and means that they considered exactly this point.
And then, they could always rename their next browser, and claim it was
not derived from Communicator. It's pretty much what intel did to stop the
other cpu makers from using the same names for the competing
chips.(286,386,486 are trivially derived from their predecessors, Pentium,
OTOH, is a proprietary name)

Uri

> now, i'd be less worried hadn't i rememberthe noise netscape managed to
> make when it changed its licensing terms between version 0.96 and version
> 1.0 of their navigator, after they first promised that private usage of
> the final product will be free, but later on claimed that it is free only
> to people who "don't make money" - i.e. people who don't work anywhere,
> or to universities only, which kind of took out the whole idea of 'free'
> from their original license...
> 
> what do you think?
> 
> guy
> 
>