From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 22 22:45:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA04904 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:45:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA04858; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:45:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA13537; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:45:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd013525; Thu Jan 22 23:45:48 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA23724; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:45:44 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199801230645.XAA23724@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Mike Shaver: Netscape gives away source code for Communicator To: opsys@mail.webspan.net (Open Systems Networking) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 06:45:43 +0000 (GMT) Cc: marcs@znep.com, imp@village.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Open Systems Networking" at Jan 22, 98 11:53:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > I would be suprised if they used the GPL as is. It is also true > > that the freely available source part of this announcement is > > nothing more than hype until it is done. "building on the heritage" > > could mean allowing somewhat similar things yet "building" a _new_ > > licence. > > I read it the same as you, and was just going back to read NETSCAPES FAQ > again to make sure i read it right. The only place i saw reference to it > using the GPL was in one of the many online news resources, either in > wired, or tech web, etc.. The JAVA license (the original, not the current one) "built on the heritage of the GPL" while maintaining control in the hands of the licensor. I think they are idiots if they give up control of the browser/server interface. I expect them to retain editorial control on the "official releases". This is, in fact, only slightly more restricted than GPL, wherein the GPL code is maintained by a central repository. Cygnus proved that there is room for one (and *only* one) editorial source per GPL style product. I think that the JAVA license take advantage of this while recognizing that fact (though I think Sun screwed up bigtime when they changed the license terms to try an capitolize on the JAVA licensees). If you had control of the protocol clients used to talk to servers, and you were a server vendor, would you give up control of one end of the protocol? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.