Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla To Be Dual Licensed - MPL/GPL
thegrommit writes "No doubt I'm one amongst many, but Mozilla is going to be
dual licensing their codebase" Actually, thegrommit was the first, but it's great news. Congratulations to all involved - I've been using Mozilla a huge amount over the last three months, and it's pretty amazing. You can check out the FAQ for more details.
The latest one (M17) is much faster, is much, MUCH more solid and is just about ready now. I'm not sure about the mail client but the browser bit is very nice now. It's still a little flaky in a few areas but it's definitely made a lot of progress. If they can get the backarrow in frames behavior working well, I'll swith over to it (I'm planning on moving back to pine for mail reading, so I won't need that functionality anymore anyway.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Upon completion of the relicensing, I'll award the Mozilla folk an official Atta Boy. More await the release of a version usable by my father.
Sorry, laddie; I understand your rant, but you're out of date. Mozilla may have fragile, slow, greedy; it isn't greatly so any more (yes, it's still greedier than I like). M16 was about as stable as (but much more standards-compliant than) Netscape 4.6. M17 is the best browser I've used on a UN*X platform bar none. In a week's hard use it has crashed once, so it isn't perfect. On the standards side it's up there with IE5; the stability still needs a little bit of work, but not very much.
Mozilla may have been a 'failed project'; it isn't any more.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
From AOL's page (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/FAQ.html):
"16. Why don't you just release the source under both the NPL and the GPL right from the start?
The NPL and GPL are incompatible, as we explain in the question about using code covered by the GPL with code covered by the NPL. If we were to take this tack, we would cause an immediate and irreparable split in development on the Mozilla code base. This split would greatly minimize the benefit that Netscape would see from free source development, and because of this, the company is not able to consider releasing its code under the GPL."
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
this assumes that you are a third party. the original author(s) of the code can change the license for new releases. since aol owns netscape, they just get netscape to make a version specially licensed for aol's use.
--
Assuming you were serious (as opposed to Sport-Thwacking :-) )...
The most casual observer of the Open Source community will note the philosphical split between the GPL and BSD camps. There are many people who contribute Open Source work under the BSD license because they disagree with the GPL's compulsory source redistribution requirements. GPL-ers likewise have issues with BSD's terms.
Mozilla is a sufficiently large project that it's easy to envision project members having diverging points of view on this issue. My hope is that, to the extent such disagreements exist, this change in licensing won't adversely impact the development of Mozilla.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
You are right, although it wasn't just the gtkmozembed header files either, it was much more complicated than that.
As it turns out, RMS himself helped us out and determined that we indeed would need to add a clause to the Galeon license for allowing us to link to the MPLed code. Without it, Helix Code and Debian probably wouldn't be able to distribute Galeon (for similar reasons why Debian doesn't include KDE). This kinda sucked, so we do plan to add the clause which will fix everything.
However, once this change occurs, we will no longer need it -- it will definitely make things more simple, though. We probably have Chris Blizzard to thank for this (in part).
I must admit that I find myself browsing with Galeon more than I do with Mozilla these days. The simple and clean interface design out-weigh the 'Heavy' and feature full interface of Moz.
The biggest problem with Galeon is the steps involved in getting it to work. (They couldn't distribute the Mozilla compontents).
Using Galeon I get far fewer crashes (and Galeon is still in Alpha) than w/Mozilla or Netscape. It is MUCH faster than Mozilla and is close to being up to speed with Netscape with application zippiness. (GTK is fast!)
Give it a look, I believe that they are moving quicker than the Konquerer group because they are leveraging a rendering engine that WORKS.
Too bad that Opera never really happened. What a great little browser. Hehehee... long live open source.
--------------------
anyway, in case anyone wants a more authoritative source for "Mozilla is the best at standards compliance", http://www.richinstyle.com/bugs/table.ht ml is the place to go.
At least that's the way I understand it.
================
================
Microsoft is not the answer, Microsoft is the question. The answer is "no".
Yes, you're right; thanks for pointing that out.
IMHO, triple licensing is needlessly complex, and renders all 3 licenses essentially meaningless.
However, it certainly doesn't render them meaningless. I still can't take the Mozilla source code, make my own modifications, and distribute a compiled binary without providing the source. AOL can (and will), but nobody else.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
This is going to make distribution of galeon and other bits of software so much more simple. Thank you mozilla! :)
So far, I feel that I'm going to get the most value out of mozilla's parts, rather than the mozilla browser/communicator type thing that they're making.
This is absolutely fabulous.
Now with GNOME/Nautilus/Star Office/Mozilla all rolled into the GNOME foundation Linux is going to start making some desktop headlines. Not to mention what Star Office/Mozilla could do for Windows.
Joseph Elwell.
So how would that work, exactly? You abide by the terms of the liscense chosen when you get it, or are they somehow going to try and abide by both simultaneously?
-TBHiX-
Some people think I'm crazy, but the voices tell me not to pay attention to them.
First, you can imagine that a dually-licensed source file is really two files: one that has the GPL at the top, and the other than has the MPL at the top. When you use the file -- distribute it, compile it into a binary and distribute that, combine it with other code -- you can choose which of those ``virtual files'' you're dealing with. So if you want to use nsMozFile.cpp with your GNOME app, you might choose to use it under the GPL. But when Netscape builds Netscape 6 from nsMozFile.cpp, they'll probably choose to mean the requirements of the MPL instead of the GPL.
I'll restate that, because it's traditionally the sticking point: a dually-licensed file lets you choose which license you will honour. You have to meet the requirements of one of the licenses, at least, so mixing and matching requirements is obviously out. (Obviously. I'm embarrassed to even mention it.) You do not have to meet all the requirements of both licenses, and in fact it's impossible to do that, because the GPL forbids additional restrictions, and the MPL has several requirements that would fall under that category.
So what about changes? Well, now you've got three choices: you can create a derivative that is GPL-only, or a derivative that is MPL-only, or -- perhaps better still -- a derivative that is also dually-licensed. mozilla.org would certainly prefer that people keep things dually-licensed, for the same reasons that we want to dually-license it in the first place: it serves a larger community of contributors and consumers. Now, we can't require that your derivative be dually-licensed; that would violate the terms of both licenses, I suspect, but certainly the GPL. So all mozilla.org can do is exert control over its infrastructure, and insist that contributions which go into the cvs.mozilla.org tree be dually-licensed. It's still well within anyone's legal rights to create a GPL-only derivative of Mozilla, and fork the world. I think that would suck, a lot, and even RMS has in the past discouraged people from doing that. If nothing else, it would discourage other organizations from going the dual licensing route.
I hope that helps some. I'm really psyched about this; it's been a dream of mine (and others') since before Mozilla was even released, and the success of dually-licensing the JavaScript, NSPR and NSS/PSM code whet my appetite for more. Please join us in the mozilla-license forum for more discussion.
At this hour. Slashdot is being read :-)
I know this may be a confusing concept for you to cope with, but you see, as the Earth rotates around its axis, the part of it which is illuminated by the Sun changes constantly. So when it's the middle of the night where you are, in many other places it's the middle of the day, and a lot of people there are reading Slashdot. By the time those people are sound asleep in the middle of the night, you'll be studying or at lunch or posting to Slashdot or something; when you're doing this, remember: the time of day varies depending on where you are.
I know that understanding it fully is too much to ask from you, but please give it a try so that, even if you do remain stupid, at least you won't sound like you are anymore.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
IOW, they want to keep some sort of proprietary control over the code?
Close, but not quite: They want to keep some sort of non-proprietary control over the code. IOW, they want everyone to have equal control over the code.
The BSDL is optimized for code-reuse, regardless of how the code is reused. The GPL is optimized for making sure the code is always available to anyone who wants it, regardless of what has been done to it. A subtle but important difference that many people miss.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
This is nonsense from beginning to end!
Umm no. This won't do anything about the bloat, the fact that Netscape is owned by AOL, or the feature creep... just the license incompatibility.
So who's forking it Einstein? Where do you get this assumption of a fork? It's not a fork, it's a dual-license.
Oh, you want a fork, eh? Fine, you write it. Somehow I suspect your boss wouldn't appreciate you taking time off from your real job, of posting incredibly bad ideas on slashdot, to write a competitor to his browser, whatever the license.
Go away, troll.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
That is quite sensible given that the code has been changing quite rapidly, and forking it at this stage would be a bit of a nightmare. Once the codebase stabilizes a bit, changing to the GPL is probably a wise thing to do; it will allow more customization of the app, without bothering the developers with every little change that is made.
I've tried Opera for Linux, and despite it's alpha stage, it runs faster and better than Netscape ever has. When it catches up to the windows version, it will most certainly be worth the price.
Check it out at: Opera for Linux
1.5) Why are you doing this?
The staff at mozilla.org is chartered with stewardship of the mozilla codebase. To that end, mozilla source must be brought to as large an audience of developers as possible; mozilla.org seeks to eliminate as many obstacles for contribution and reuse of the code as possible.
If they want everyone to be able to reuse the code, why don't they just BSD the whole thing? This would allow "as large an audience of developers as possible" to contribute to the code.
There's this one and this one.
IE may well be good at getting dodgy html to render but it seems they aren't too good at getting what are (presumably, I've never had need to look at them) well defined standards/protocols to work properly. From a server admin point of view the fact that IE chokes on such things is a bit of a pain in the arse. Of course, the end result isn't Microsoft looking bad as the general public will just assume that the server is borked......
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
http://www.arcsite.de/hp/flibble/news/sidebar.html
if anyone at slashdot wnat to make an offical one, I'd be happy to give out the code.
I personally think this dual licensing is unfortunate. Every piece of code in Mozilla is under a free-software license. I do not not think it should be necessary for Mozilla to be dual-licensed for it to be legally combined with GPLed software. The GPL exists to promote free software. Free software does not exist to promote the GPL. For GPLed code to not cooperate with proprietary code is expected, for GPLed code to not cooperate with other free software is sad. When the GPL makes it harder for free-software projects to cooperate (like Mozilla and Kaffe), the GPL hurts the cause of free software and so it should be changed to solve the problem.
That the GPL made this mistake is understandable. It was created at a time when free software was being invented, and it was unclear whether there would be reasons for important non-GPL free-software projects. Now we know that many free-software projects, corporations and other organizations prefer to release code under free-software licenses tailored to their needs. I think the GPL needs to be changed to permit linking with software under any free-software license as long as the entire derived work is under free software licenses (no using other licenses as "shields" to get GPLed code into a proprietary application). Expressing this requirement is a license is difficult, and that is why I didn't want to see this dual-licensing. Mozilla is one of the most prominent non-GPL codebases and provided an important incentive to solve the problem: getting GPLed software to "play with" other free software without letting it "play with" proprietary software. "Keeping free software free" is an important goal of the GPL, but it is not the only goal of the GPL, and the GPL should be changed to acknowledge that.
I think that the free software community is weakened because the GPL is actively hostile to non-GPL approaches to free software. I think this discourages experimentation with free-software development and business models and therefore makes it harder for free software to compete with proprietary software. While some of this cost is visible (licensing flamewars, for example) I think the vast majority of it is invisible. How do you count projects not started, and experiments that were never made? Many people here think Galeon is a great project. Would it have been created sooner if the GPL didn't discourage working with non-GPL free software? I think one of the strengths of the free-software community is how easy it is for developers across the world to cooperate with each other. We should be working on enhancing this strength, not standing by and letting the GPL dilute it.
The GPL forbids the licensee changing its terms. The licence holder (i.e. Netscape) can do whatever the hell it wants, no matter what the GPL says.
AFAIK, Netscape Navigator 4 has a pretty poor implementation of CSS and JavaScripting/DHTML. IE is probably the best out right now, assuming you ignore the fact that it renders incorrect HTML, and is loaded with proprietary extensions (like the new HTML components crap.)
Mozilla is currently more compliant with the spec than IE, but it's still pre-release quality. There are a few things that it doesn't do yet, but rest assured they will come along soon - the power of open source is immense.
Thus, your comment about Mozilla clueing in about DHTML is pretty much incorrect - Mozilla is consistently shown to have the most compliant implementation available - even in pre-release form.
Your comment about stability is puzzling.
I'm used every milestone release since M10 or so, and I have found them to be mostly stable. I suspect that I have experienced something like 20 crashes with Mozilla since M10 - that's a tiny number for pre-release software. What's more, the number of crashes I have experienced since M14 or so is a tiny fraction of that - perhaps 3 or 4?
Obviously, YMMV, but for me, Mozilla is already more stable that NN4, and really really close to IE stability - all this in pre-release software!
The amount of bizarre falsehood WRT licensing being thrown around here is, as always, impressive, but this stands out especially. The MPL is most certainly an Open Source license, according to the OSD and DFSG.
All the complaints about Mozilla - Netscape/AOL tie-ins, bloat, feature creep, unnecessary duplication of extant functionality, license incompatibility (galleon) - are about to be cured.
It'll be Free. It'll be linkable and reusable. All the extra crap can be stripped out. It'll be a wonderful day.
But the next day might be bleak indeed, and this is where your acid test might fail.
The MPL fork will remain the most cohesive, especially if the GPL releases lag behind the MPL. No one will maintain it as a full fledged project on its own (like the Linux Kernel is). It'll be more like GhostScript - the latest and greatest will cost you (cash), the next best is free (beer) - only in Mozilla's case it's costing freedom.
In order to make it a true acid test (and really, in order to save Mozilla from complete crapitude, my opinion), it has to completely break away from Netscape and then pick up a new, powerful maintainer (a Benevolent Dictator).
In any case, when it comes time to submit a patch, submit it under the GPL, even if that means it won't make it into the Netscape-maintained codebase.
In other words... We oughta take the crown jewels and run like hell. Maybe leave behind a thank you card.
--Threed-Looking out for Numero Uno since 1976!
sigh
Okay, so even though the focus of my concern was that the relicensing might delay Mozilla, people decided instead to focus on my comment concerning M14's stability. The consensus in this thread is that I should Get With The Program, download the latest Mozilla, and give it a spin before criticizing.
Okay, fair enough. I make no excuses. However, if the gallery will admit an explanation: I finally decided to bite the bullet and upgrade my desktop system from Slackware 3.4 to something using libc6. I wasn't looking forward to it, as it meant a full wipe and re-install. Fortunately, I have an ORB drive, so I was able to snapshot the entire system before wiping it. In the process, I've decided to become a lazy schnook and, rather than upgrade to Slackware 7.0, chose to go with Debian 2.2 (potato).
So there I am, confronted with dselect's list of a bazillion packages, and on a whim decide to install Mozilla. I search, find an entry, and the description says it's version M14. "Hrm, that sounds a bit old," I think to myself, "but it should be good enough to play with..."
After a quick peek, I see that M17 is in Debian's 'unstable' tree. Since y'all have recommended it so highly, I'll snarf it tonight and give it a try.
Schwab
P.S: Wish me luck; I get to repeat this entire upgrade process for my Slackware-based laptop.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
You mean minor parts like Qt?
You're right. But on the other hand most Mozilla project members would not want a GPL-only fork of the tree. And GPL-only patches will never be accepted because they violate the spirit of the dual licensed product. If you want to make your own GPL-only fork, fine, but you won't get much respect from any Mozilla community members. The point of this is to allow the free use of Mozilla and it's components in GPLed projects. Patches against the Mozilla codebase should still be contributed back under both licenses so they can reach the broadest audience and keep in the spirit of the original. The nice thing is you're not coerced here, so if you want to be a prick you can. The shame and dishonor brought upon you will be coercive enough.
I've used Mozilla now and again (M14 I think is the last one I touched), and it's stability leaves a great deal to be desired.
Yeah, I was trying out Windows 2.0 a little while back. Boy did it ever suck. Nobody would ever use that. Ack, and did you see that Linux 0.8 kernel? That'll never get anywhere either.
It's easy to envision there will be some individuals who are philosophically opposed to the GPL, and will refuse consent on that basis.
A bunch of volunteers working on an open source project with deep philosophical problems with GPL. Are you from Redmond?
This could potentially lead to a very messy code split
Kids, don't try taking logical leaps like this at home. Obviously this person is a professional and has taken the proper safety precautions to avoid falling into a mental abyss.
Other than that, good post.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
I'm left wondering how this is going to play with the plans that AOL has for Mozilla. From the rumour mill, AOL 6.0 client is going to be made up using Mozilla as it's rendering engine. This is supposed to be true whether or not they drop IE as their browser of choice. Couple this with some of the proprietary work being done, such as integrating AIM, and there certainly appears to be a conflict brewing.
Mind you, I have zero concern for the well being of AOL or their software. Thing is, if AOL is going to want to build into Mozilla these proprietary components, aren't we looking at GPL conflicts all over the place? How far can they take this and still please both the company funding them and the community keeping them going? As earlier posts have suggested already, there's a LOT of details that need explained before this has any real weight.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
This highlights an interesting problem which will likely only get worse in the future - the difficutly of relicencing a product made by large numbers of people not all under the banner of a corporation.
You could say the votes of 51% of developers (Or the developers of 51% of the code) could change the licence, but what's to stop someone coming in and adding large amounts of code just to take over control of the project.
Yeah, that was a pretty good troll, wasn't it? Sounded like it might be serious, controversial and insulting enough to get a response, and just ridiculous enough to hint at its true nature. An honest-to-goodness troll. Not like those morons running around here spewing garbage, calling themselves "trolls" and acting like they are resistence fighters or something. Bull! They are spammers, nothing more. Penis Birds? Hot Grits? Criminals love open source? All of it -- spam.
It's been so long that the spammers have been calling themselves trolls that what a real troll is has been forgotten. So good job recognizing a real troll, but you forgot one thing: What to do about it. Remember, you don't respond to trolls, you don't argue with them, you just say *THWACK* and move on.
Have a nice day. ^_^
The enemies of Democracy are
If an outside developer adds modules or new code to the project or even makes a whole new project based on Mozilla and they accept the terms of the GPL but not the MPL, and explicitly state their addition is GPL only, then Netscape cannot use that new code in a closed source product without permission of the author. And actually this is why some have been reluctant to add to or enhance Mozilla. Any additions by outside developer could simply be hijacked by AOL/Nescape under the MPL.
Section 10 of the GNU General Public License explicitly allows dual licensing.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
"What's to stop people slurping it all up as GPL and dumping the MPL entirely? "
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Nothing at all, AFAIK.
The only reasons I can think of for preferring something complicated like the MPL over the known GPL are `marketroid' and good ol' idiocy.
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
The Galeon project will probably be one of the first to greatly benifit from the relicensing! Slashdot had a discussion about Galeon back in July.
Currently they cannot distribute the gtkembmoz.h file, due to licensing restrictions, which is needed for compiling the source code.
Through Galeon, this will also directally effect the GNOME project. Giving it a simple browser utilizing the Gecko rendering engine. We will, with evolution/nautilus(SP?) have seperate apps for browsing, e-mail, and file/system management! Along with the upcomming GPL of Star Office, GNOME is on the move to providing a complete productivity environment without the bloat!
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
I agree. As soon as I saw this I was thinking how this would solve problems with Galeon. Until now to make Galeon work you download the entire Mozilla source from a separate site, and then compile. Now distributioning binary rpm's and deb's or whatever will be no problem. This will also resolve potential problems for Eazel and the Nautilus browser/filemanager with is going to use the gecko technology as a core. Since Eazel extends Gnome and Gnome is LGPLed and GPLed there could have been linking problems. Now nobody can say the license is Mozilla's problem. Mozilla is also getting more and more outside developers all the time. I admit, the Netscape version of Mozilla may flop, but the technology will continue to be used in various places. It already is being used in many embedded devices.
This will make it easier for both open-sourcers (galeon) and companies that can't do full open-source (netscape) to make versions of the project, but it won't make it any easier to bring in code from other (open-source) projects. Also, isn't one big point of having a single license for a project that you can always merge two forks if each has interesting/useful code?
A better solution would have been to create a "MPL 2.0" that says "you may relicense this code under the GPL 2.0 or higher." Assuming the MPL has one of those sneaky "or later a version of this license" clauses.
The shareholder is always right.
20 crashes of pre-release software is hardly out of the ordinary - I've been developing a computer game over the past year, and it has crashed about as much. Ditto for nearly ANY windows app I've written, of any appreciable size.
I found Mozilla to be a high quality implementation of a web browser - that's why I liked it.
Microsoft is porting stuff to the GNU/Linux system.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
You have a point ... it is needlessly confusing .. but you speak as if there's not "licensing confusion" in the proprietary side of the sofware biz. Software licenses are extremely complex things, free or not. Just as one example, look at the myriad of issues Microsoft customers (serfs) must endure -- possibly buying multiple licenses for the same computer, application serving (you don't own anything, have virtual no rights), etc.
If they want everyone to be able to reuse the code, why don't they just BSD the whole thing?
Because they want the rights back for any changes to the codebase. With copyleft licenses such as MPL and GPL, mozilla.org gets rights to use the changes, which could remain a company's "precious trade secret" under non-copyleft licensing.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Hear me now, believe me later, Mozilla is a failed project. It's not a useful browser, that is if you do more then read slashdot. Yow want to click on a link on shoutcast and have xmms load? You want Java? You want a browser that doesn't take up more memory then Homer does food at the all you can eat buffet? Then don't use Mozilla. Not now, not ever.
This is just a way for a failed project to salvage itself. By hoping that someone else(because they haven't been able to) will be able to make a browser that's 1/4 of what even Netscpae 4 is, let alone IE5.
The only way people will use any part of Mozilla, is if it's parts of other programs. Be it AOL software, Natualius, or whatever.
This isn't flamebait. It really isn't. But to say that Mozilla is useful for anything besides light browsing for more then 15 minutes at a time(before it segfaults) is just wishful thinking and sour grapes at IE5.
I really hope this last ditch effort saves something from the Mozilla project. Maybe other people other then Netscape/AOL employees will start to work on it and finally release something I'm not embarased to say is an open source project.
Good luck Mozilla....you're going to need it.
Actually, MPL/GPL isn't the same as LGPL -- consider the case where a developer wants to simply use a single file from the library source, rather than link with the library as a whole. Under MPL/GPL, they can choose the MPL route and have the rest of the code under another (BSD, proprietary, what-have-you) license. Under LGPL, the rest of their code would have to be GPL-or-LGPL covered.
1. The recent builds are MUCH better than just a few weeks ago, much less M14. It really is starting to shape up nicely.
2. I beleive the MPL allows Netscape (and only Netscape) to release the code under their own licence. If there own licence happens to be the GPL then that's their right.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
A browser SHOULD be a little more picky about poorly written HTML, otherwise it encourages it and forces every other browser to parse broken HTML in EXACTLY the same way. A standards compliant browser will be blamed for not displaying pages "correctly" when it's actually the broken HTML that is to blame.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Point the second, RE "whatever that means": I didn't know either, so I used a search engine.
- Here's RMS's take on MPL.
- An alternate view.
- And a nice list of license types from gnu.org
Point the third: your post was as nearly content-free as possible. Do a little brain work next time.This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."