Jonathan Wilson | 9 Apr 09:26 2002
Picon

GPL/LGPL question

Is 100% of mozilla now under the triple licence?
If not, is there a list somewhere of the files that arent?

Gervase Markham | 9 Apr 10:27 2002
Picon

Re: GPL/LGPL question

Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> Is 100% of mozilla now under the triple licence?
> If not, is there a list somewhere of the files that arent?

No. This work is nearing completion. The current plan is to wait until 
we've heard from all the people we've found before changing the files.

Gerv

Gervase Markham | 22 Apr 10:20 2002
Picon

Re: NPL static vs. dynamic linking (Spidermonkey)

mike jarosch wrote:
> Ok, I've read the NPL and I understand that I can use Spidermonkey in my
> commercial application as long as I mention in the credits and a readme file
> that "Spidermonkey used under the terms of the NPL, available at
> http://www.mozilla.org/" and don't make any changes to Spidermonkey itself.
> I can sell my application and not have to release source code or license it
> under the NPL.

AIUI, this is correct.

> My question is about linking, can I link to the Spidermonkey library
> statically and still do the above or do I have to link dynamically (dll)?

Either is fine.

Gerv

Gervase Markham | 30 Apr 10:36 2002
Picon

Re: NPL/GPL supposed status of Mozilla

> compilation and debugging, and was
> surprised to see very little support for the triple
> license in place. This is very late in the day
> given Mozilla 1.0 is just a breath away from general
> release.

Although we had hoped to get all the changes in for 1.0, it seems it's not to be. It's a lot of work tracking down
and getting permissions from over 400 people and companies.

> Even the JSEng (JavaScript Engine) which has
> long been noted as effectively 'LGPLed' is very
> out of date in its license statements. (see
> js/Makefile). If you follow the instructions in
> the header and surf the Web for a matching
> license, then no mention of GPL ever occurs
> in the license documents you reach, much less
> in the source code you've downloaded.  Although
> the files js/src/* have up to date licenses,
> is there anyone in this modern era who thinks
> that the compilation & dependacy system (Makefiles
> and directory structure) are not also part of the
> source?

No, no-one. However, different contributors contribute to both. It's quite possible that contributors
to the code may give permission to relicense, and contributors to the build system may not.

> Can someone comment on the value of publicly
> stated policies by AOL compared with actual
> inclusion of license terms in the source product?

(Continue reading)

Gervase Markham | 1 May 10:26 2002
Picon

Re: NPL/GPL supposed status of Mozilla

> thanks for your patient reply - I take your points.
> However, there are various anxieties even in
> this newsgroup from Netscape legal folk
> regarding obstacles to GPL licenses?
> 
> Can I ask: what is the legal status
> of mozilla.org. Is it a trust or a foundation?

I don't know for certain, but I believe mozilla.org has no legal status at the moment.

> How did the Netscape IP transfer to Mozilla,
> or are we all just relying on the principle that
> you're a safe non-target if you duplicate a piece of
> software from scratch?

What Netscape IP are you talking about? Netscape has given permission for code written by its engineers to
be relicensed. No IP transfer is necessary.

> I guess my question is: does anyone have a claim
> on the artifacts commonly referred to as Mozilla,
> rather than a claim on a contribution that's a piece
> (such as GIF support, as a bad example).

What do you mean by "a claim"?

> Good luck with your 400 contacts. Sounds like
> you could use a hand.

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/missing.html :-)

(Continue reading)

Ben Bucksch | 1 May 10:54 2002

Re: NPL/GPL supposed status of Mozilla

Somebody wrote:

>> I guess my question is: does anyone have a claim
>> on the artifacts commonly referred to as Mozilla,
>> rather than a claim on a contribution that's a piece
>> (such as GIF support, as a bad example).
>
There is no single entity which holds the copyright to all of Mozilla, 
if you mean that. If that were the case, the relicensing were easy.


Gmane