In fact, they wanted to create their own legal obstacles to using the name.
We only want to create obstacles for those who would _ab_use the name. If you want to call your modified version "Firefox", get in touch and let's talk. For unmodified binaries, distribute away - there's no restrictions there. See our licensing page.
That is no longer true about the Mozilla Suite. With the demise of Netscape, mozilla.org has stepped up to the plate. Mozilla 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 are all labelled as stable, and suitable for all users.
The Mozilla team released they needed to support the GPL, but had problems tracing all the copyright holders so that every single element of the code could be dual licensed. I don't know if they eventually succeeded or not.
We did; relicensing is in progress at the moment. However, it may take some time. When it's finished, we'll let everyone know:-)
This means, that AOL/Netscape does (still) have the right to use Mozilla code in their own products without the need to release the source of modified Mozilla files?
Only that tiny proportion of the Mozilla code which is still under the NPL; this right has long been useless to Netscape due to the large amount of MPLed code in the tree.
Because we don't yet have all the necessary permissions from AOL Time Warner that we would need in order to do so.''
The Relicensing FAQ is out of date (I'm currently revising it.) The Foundation inherited Netscape's right to relicense all NPLed code under a license of its choosing; it will be exercising that right to relicense all NPLed Mozilla code under the MPL tri-license.
My test page demonstrates that the suggested solution doesn't work. Even when I externally document.write() the <object> or <applet> tag, the popup still appears.
what do we need police for if all citizens are mandated to police each other?
So if you see a bag-snatcher run off with a woman's purse, you'd ignore the event - after all, what are the police for, eh?
In a just society, helping bring about justice is the responsibility of every citizen, even if particular ones have special powers to aid them in that end.
[This argument is actually moot, because ESR does not know the identity of the perpetrator.]
Firstly, your self-interest justification of keeping quiet is, even by your own terms, flawed.
Even if ESR knew who the perpetrator is, there's no good reason for him to stick his neck out on SCO's behalf.
Yes there is, because having people like that brought to justice benefits ESR and the OSS community. It also benefits you - how do you know this person won't turn his DDOS bots on you tomorrow, if you happen to unknowingly annoy him?
Secondly, your comments about "drawing attention to yourself from law enforcement" are paranoid in the extreme. For a start, the guy is a public figure; I think law enforcement probably know about him already.:-)
To sum up, the code in question is owned by SCO, but using said code in Linux is permissable under the license terms by which the code was released.
Actually, as someone pointed out on LWN I believe, the license used was a four-clause BSD with advertising clause, which is incompatible with the GPL. So, copying the code into a GPLed work violates the advertising clause.
Silly me. I automatically believed something Darl McBride said was the truth, and the whole truth, without checking the real facts. I won't make that mistake again.
You cannot generalise from a person, or even several people, to an entire community.
Agreed. But are you arguing that ESR shouldn't inform the proper authorities about the crime he knows has been committed?
That would, IMO, be the right thing to do - stop the activities of someone whose actions harm the community and its reputation, and demonstrate (if demonstration is needed) that we have respect for the law. On this point, Mr McBride is right.
As was said at the time that the MacOS 9 build got deprecated, OS 9 builds will happen when and if someone steps up and offers to maintain the OS 9 port. As yet, no-one has done so.
I think someone did an unofficial build of 1.4, but I don't know where you might get it from.
I was thinking the same thing. Apparently that was the plan but they have been forced to change things (perhaps due to the Netscape break).
You imagine we didn't see that coming?:-)
it appears that they were forced to make the change and only sort of let it be known
Not really. Admittedly, this change could have done with being posted elsewhere as well, but there's no conspiracy or coverup. The roadmap just changed to reflect reality. I think most people who looked at the issue could have seen that the switchover wasn't going to happen in as aggressive a timescale as we had originally hoped.
That is a myth, perpetuated by people like me, who used to want to see that level of control available to authors
And you lambast me for believing it? Apologies for being fooled by your propaganda.
(Editor of Mozilla's XBL spec etc.
I put my @mozilla.org email address at the bottom of my post to declare an interest, not to assert authority. I wanted to avoid accusations of astroturfing.
I utterly admit that you know more about web standards and UI programming than me. But what I do know I learned from people I respect - people like you. If you perpetuate myths, you must expect people to believe them.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, they wanted to create their own legal obstacles to using the name.
We only want to create obstacles for those who would _ab_use the name. If you want to call your modified version "Firefox", get in touch and let's talk. For unmodified binaries, distribute away - there's no restrictions there. See our licensing page.
Gerv
You can create fake bookmarks that have some smarts to them
Er, this feature is called Custom Keywords and it's been in Mozilla for several years.
Gerv
That is no longer true about the Mozilla Suite. With the demise of Netscape, mozilla.org has stepped up to the plate. Mozilla 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 are all labelled as stable, and suitable for all users.
Gerv
The Mozilla team released they needed to support the GPL, but had problems tracing all the copyright holders so that every single element of the code could be dual licensed. I don't know if they eventually succeeded or not.
:-)
We did; relicensing is in progress at the moment. However, it may take some time. When it's finished, we'll let everyone know
Gerv
This means, that AOL/Netscape does (still) have the right to use Mozilla code in their own products without the need to release the source of modified Mozilla files?
Only that tiny proportion of the Mozilla code which is still under the NPL; this right has long been useless to Netscape due to the large amount of MPLed code in the tree.
Because we don't yet have all the necessary permissions from AOL Time Warner that we would need in order to do so.''
The Relicensing FAQ is out of date (I'm currently revising it.) The Foundation inherited Netscape's right to relicense all NPLed code under a license of its choosing; it will be exercising that right to relicense all NPLed Mozilla code under the MPL tri-license.
Gerv
The reason there's no links is because the quoted text was an email (which everyone who signed up for the conference received.)
Gerv
Xinhua said the craft carried astronaut Yang Liwei, 38.
I'm surprised they didn't send his brother - Mil Kiwei.
Gerv
Nope - that doesn't work either. :-(
Gerv
So put your externalWriteFlash() and externalWriteJava() inside externalwriter.js.
I'll certainly try that when I get into work tomorrow - but that's not how the examples on e.g. the Microsoft page are arranged.
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<SCRIPT SRC="sample.js"></SCRIPT>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<SCRIPT>
ReplaceContent();
</SCRIPT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
As you can see, the call to the external JS function is embedded in the page.
Gerv
My test page demonstrates that the suggested solution doesn't work. Even when I externally document.write() the <object> or <applet> tag, the popup still appears.
Gerv
...that he did not know the identities, and did not want to know the identities of the attackers. So the authorities know this.
I was unaware of that at the time I posted; see my other replies in this thread.
As to your other points, how do you stop the activities of someone you do not control, or even know the identity of?
I didn't say that ESR should stop them; that's the job of law enforcement.
If you want to demonstrate your respect for the law, why don't YOU cooperate with the authorities in stopping all terrorist attacks!
If I knew anything I thought would be useful, I certainly would. Wouldn't you?
Gerv
what do we need police for if all citizens are mandated to police each other?
So if you see a bag-snatcher run off with a woman's purse, you'd ignore the event - after all, what are the police for, eh?
In a just society, helping bring about justice is the responsibility of every citizen, even if particular ones have special powers to aid them in that end.
Gerv
[This argument is actually moot, because ESR does not know the identity of the perpetrator.]
:-)
Firstly, your self-interest justification of keeping quiet is, even by your own terms, flawed.
Even if ESR knew who the perpetrator is, there's no good reason for him to stick his neck out on SCO's behalf.
Yes there is, because having people like that brought to justice benefits ESR and the OSS community. It also benefits you - how do you know this person won't turn his DDOS bots on you tomorrow, if you happen to unknowingly annoy him?
Secondly, your comments about "drawing attention to yourself from law enforcement" are paranoid in the extreme. For a start, the guy is a public figure; I think law enforcement probably know about him already.
Gerv
To sum up, the code in question is owned by SCO, but using said code in Linux is permissable under the license terms by which the code was released.
Actually, as someone pointed out on LWN I believe, the license used was a four-clause BSD with advertising clause, which is incompatible with the GPL. So, copying the code into a GPLed work violates the advertising clause.
Gerv
He doesn't know who it was
So it appears. My apologies.
Gerv
ESR doesn't know the identity of the DDoSer
Silly me. I automatically believed something Darl McBride said was the truth, and the whole truth, without checking the real facts. I won't make that mistake again.
Gerv
You cannot generalise from a person, or even several people, to an entire community.
Agreed. But are you arguing that ESR shouldn't inform the proper authorities about the crime he knows has been committed?
That would, IMO, be the right thing to do - stop the activities of someone whose actions harm the community and its reputation, and demonstrate (if demonstration is needed) that we have respect for the law. On this point, Mr McBride is right.
Gerv
It's important to note that, while the code still remembers the first launch time, there is no end-time configured - so the bomb will never go off.
As the man says, it's a code relic.
Gerv
we do need a browser that doesn't suck.
As was said at the time that the MacOS 9 build got deprecated, OS 9 builds will happen when and if someone steps up and offers to maintain the OS 9 port. As yet, no-one has done so.
I think someone did an unofficial build of 1.4, but I don't know where you might get it from.
Gerv
I was thinking the same thing. Apparently that was the plan but they have been forced to change things (perhaps due to the Netscape break).
:-)
You imagine we didn't see that coming?
it appears that they were forced to make the change and only sort of let it be known
Not really. Admittedly, this change could have done with being posted elsewhere as well, but there's no conspiracy or coverup. The roadmap just changed to reflect reality. I think most people who looked at the issue could have seen that the switchover wasn't going to happen in as aggressive a timescale as we had originally hoped.
Gerv
That is a myth, perpetuated by people like me, who used to want to see that level of control available to authors
And you lambast me for believing it? Apologies for being fooled by your propaganda.
(Editor of Mozilla's XBL spec etc.
I put my @mozilla.org email address at the bottom of my post to declare an interest, not to assert authority. I wanted to avoid accusations of astroturfing.
I utterly admit that you know more about web standards and UI programming than me. But what I do know I learned from people I respect - people like you. If you perpetuate myths, you must expect people to believe them.
Gerv
Camino is a personal project, first of Dave Hyatt and others, and now of Mike Pinkerton. It never had official Netscape backing that I know of.
Regardless, Camino was started four years after the initial code release, which is the time period relevant to this discussion.
Gerv
Fair point - email Scott MacGregor and ask him to provide some.
Gerv
Like I said, I wasn't around for this decision. I know some stuff, but not everything :-)
Gerv
XUL is not a toolkit in the same way that GTK and QT are; it's a set of UI technologies built upon Gecko, the rendering engine.
The combination of Gecko and XUL is being used outside Mozilla - see the OEOne HomeBase Operating Environment for one excellent example.
Gerv