Re: Licensing

Actually this seems to be pretty good news for people who want to use
Mozilla source code in commercial projects. I am actually quite
surprised that AOL/Time Warner is doing this. After all, the few Free
Software projects that I know of that actually make money do so by
releasing their source code under the GPL (or a GPL-like license in
the case of Sleepycat) and then charging those who wish to include a
non-free version of this software in their own proprietary software.

I assumed that Mozilla was going to be used in the same way. Free
Software hackers could use the GPLed version of Mozilla, and
commercial developers would have to pony up some cash for a
proprietary license (or release source code).

It would appear that AOL is desperate to have people actually *use*
the Mozilla source code. By switching to the LGPL they lose whatever
leverage they had over commercial software developers who are
interested in re-using Mozilla software.

Yes, it would be easier if everyone simply released their Free
Software under a BSD style license, but that doesn't work well for
AOL. After all, the BSD folks might not care if Microsoft borrows
their TCP/IP stack, but I would bet that AOL would care a *lot* if
Microsoft started borrowing some of their code.

Jason

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> For those of you into licensing issues, I found this on the Mozilla
> site about their new triple license:
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html
>
> Don't read on an empty stomach. :-)
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org