on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:38:34PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Netscape was able to actively sell into those corporations in a very
> > > interesting manner. "Since you already have our products and the
> > > license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us."
> >
> > Support this statement with a citation and/or reference.
>
> Do you not believe that? I also thought that that was what they did.
The statement is strongly worded, isn't supported by reference, and is
ambiguously stated. Does the statement mean that these companies are
obligated to pay for use of Mozilla because of their prior licensing of
Netscape versions <= 4.x? Does it refer to Netscape server-side
products? Does it refer to contractual obligations to pay for software
through some specified time period?
I'm not questioning the statement. I'm withholding judgement until
further data are presented.
> If David thinks that Netscape asked for licensing fees after they were
> under an open source license, I'm sure he is mistaken.
His statement could be interpreted to suggest this. It is, I agree,
unclear, and this would AFAIK be wrong.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
PGP signature
