Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:35:41 -0800 (PST) From: patl@phoenix.volant.org To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mike Shaver: Netscape gives away source code for Communicator Message-ID: <ML-3.3.885533741.9979.patl@asimov> In-Reply-To: <199801230412.XAA11541@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> John Kelly said: > > On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:40:48 -0700, Warner Losh <imp@village.org> > > wrote: > > > > >The press release said GPL. Actually, it said something about "building on the heritage of the GPL..."; but that is another thread. > > This is an interesting case of BSD vs. GPL. > > > > If Netscape used a BSD type license, Microsoft could take it and add > > improvements and hide the improvements. With GPL, they can still take > > it, but can't hide the improvements. At least not without getting > > sued by Netscape. > > > > So GPL is better for Netscape. > > > I agree, in this case a GPLed Netscape is better for everyone. Since it > is a complete work, and not likely to taint other software, it is probably > not bad to use GPL. I would suggest specific relief from GPL regarding > programming interface specs though. Actually, there is one thing I would like to see it taint. (Given that the licence terms are similar enough to the GPL to include the tainting feature.) Imagine the scenario where Microsoft decides to incorporate some of this free code into IE. But wait - they claim that IE is part of the OS. That would taint the entire OS and require them to release the sources... I know, it will never happen; but we can dream... -Pat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ML-3.3.885533741.9979.patl>