Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:29:26 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Christoph Toshok <toshok@Hungry.COM> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Free netscape - good or bad ? Message-ID: <19980124172926.36408@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <m2iuravuql.fsf@terror.hungry.com>; from Christoph Toshok on Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 05:58:58AM -0800 References: <9801231816.AA10759@mlor.its.rpi.edu> <199801240124.LAA00356@word.smith.net.au> <m2iuravuql.fsf@terror.hungry.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 05:58:58AM -0800, Christoph Toshok wrote:
> mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) writes:
>
> >
> > > I think it's a good move for Netscape. And to keep this somewhat
> > > relevent to the hackers mailing list, it will be certainly a good
> > > move for netscape on FreeBSD... :-)
> >
> > What *I'd* like to see/hear would be some commentary from the people
> > inside Netscape that are responsible for the current port.
>
> I responded to mike alone, accidentally, instead of the entire list.
>
> I alone am entirely to blame for the fact that there is a freebsd
> port. Well, me and the release guy that was kind enough to add it
> to the release builds :)
Does this mean that FreeBSD specific bugs should be sent to you
instead of through the normal Netscape report chain ("the black hole
for bug reports")?
> I'm more than willing to beat up on netscape people who are leaning
> towards a more restrictive license than the GPL. If any of you have
> contact with such people from, let me know. I'll be on the look out
> for them as well.
I think there are at least a few variations from the GPL that would be
a good thing here:
(1) Anybody that distribute copies of something dervied from Netscape
should be required to give Netscape a copy on request (for free).
This makes sure Netscape don't have to pay or do extra work to get
features from something derived from Netscape.
(2) Netscape should be allowed to distribute libraries for linking to
3rd parties, without the 3rd party being required to distribute source
code (or object files for linking as in the LGPL). This should
include cases where people have contributed changes back to Netscape.
(This is to allow competition with the embedded IE4).
I want a license that allow Netscape more rights than they would have
had with the GPL; it shouldn't place many more restrictions on 3rd
parties, but it should allow Netscape to do a lot more than a GPL with
back-contributed code normally does.
Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980124172926.36408>