On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Noel Maddy wrote:
>
> Mitch Davis wrote:
> >
> > My question now is, how do we ensure that the Netscape client is
> > managed in "bazaar" fashion? (See
> > http://locke.ccil.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-paper.html)
>
> Well, it seems to me that a key part of it will be what the license ends
> up looking like. All we know so far is that it will be "a license which
> allows source code modification and redistribution and provides for free
> availability of source code versions, building on the heritage of the
> GNU Public License." They HAVE NOT published the license yet, and they
> HAVE NOT promised that it will be the GPL license, or even that it would
> be free the sense that the GPL license is free.
>
> It's pretty obvious that Netscape really wants (needs) this product
> to move into the bazaar-fashion development, so that it can continue
> to compete with MSIE. But if they mess up the license so it's still
> "their" product, and they still have development control somehow, then
> we won't reach the bazaar. On the other hand, I can see that they would
> have a strong inclination to keep at least some control of what's done
> to Netscape -- from their viewpoint, it's the name recognition that
> they're trying to maintain, and it's a bit frightening to completely
> give up control of the main product that gives that name recognition.
>
> Rather than crowing about the non-existent GPL-ing of the Netscape code,
> wouldn't it behoove us to let Netscape know that there *are* many people
> who would really love to work on Netscape, but that it depends on the
> license that they put on it. Let's tell them what kind of a license
> would encourage us to be involved.
>
> [For some ideas, check out http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html]
>
>
> --
> "The world's biggest online database in the country."
> - Trading Times radio ad
> Noel Maddy <nmaddy1@biostat.hfh.edu>
>
Gerhard Mack<gmack@imag.net>
--As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.