[crackmonkey] (forw) AOL Merger and Netscape Public License

[Rick Moen]

As requested by David Cassel....

----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick> -----

Message-ID: <19981202133331.B3265 at hugin.imat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:33:31 -0800
To: love at cptech.org
Subject: AOL Merger and Netscape Public License

Dear Mr. Love:

I note with interest your analysis of the Netscape Public License
(NPL), posted to the Info-Policy-Notes mailing list.  As a Linux
user and advocate, I participated in discussions leading to its 
formation, and might be able to cast some light on it.  (I have 
no other connection to mozilla.org or Netscape Communications/AOL,
and do not speak for them.)

The essence of your analysis is that AOL could "make any future releases
be protected under a new license agreement, including a non-free and
non-open license."  This is technically true.  But.

What you describe would be what's known as a "code fork".  That is,
AOL would branch off a separately maintained source-code tree, while
mozilla.org's source tree would continue to develop as it has to date.

What I question is your apparent assumption that such code-forked 
versions would be significant in comparison to the main, mozilla.org
branch.  The mozilla.org codebase benefits from a huge number of 
active developers and a colossal number of bug-reporters.  AOL's 
hypothetically withdrawing Netscape staffers from Mozilla work would
put a small dent in that, but I would estimate that mozilla.org would
still retain far greater momentum, energy, and effectiveness.  

Therefore, mozilla.org's version seems highly likely to remain the 
dominant one.  The Netscape dog now is wagged by the Mozilla tail.

Further, a code fork necessitates duplication of effort on both
branches -- which is one reason why they are so rare.  AOL could
continue to simply "take back" and re-licence third-party code only
by _conceding_ development leadership entirely to the Mozilla community
(i.e., letting mozilla.org define the codebase).  Otherwise, AOL would
have to continually "port" over third-party improvements to its 
separate codebase, a prohibitive effort.

The high expense of forking the code, and the bad PR inherent in 
releasing non-free variants, make it be contrary to AOL's interests
to do either.  You are correct that they could do so, and that they
could use such code for any purpose under any licence.  However,
pragmatically speaking, that's not "taking back" in the sense you 
intend, because AOL's variant code would naturally become a secondary 
version, more slowly and less effectively developed.  They are not
fools, so I doubt they would try.

-- 
Cheers,                   (The cynics among us might say:   "We laugh, 
Rick Moen                 monkeyboys -- Linux IS the mainstream UNIX now!
rick (at) hugin.imat.com  MuaHaHaHa!" but that would be rude. -- Jim Dennis

----- End forwarded message -----
=====================================================================
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo at zork.net saying
"unsubscribe crackmonkey" in the body of the message.