Re: The "Netscape 6.1" setup page is back with Mozilla build 2001091108

[Pratik]

Asa Dotzler wrote:

> JTK wrote:
> 
> 
>>Brian Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey, this was gone for a while, and now it is back.  After installing
>>>Mozilla 2001091108 on my MacOS 9.1 system, the first browser window
>>>that opens up upon launch is the Netscape 6.1 setup page.
>>>
>>>I really don't mind, but is seems like it would be kind of embarassing
>>>to the Mozilla organization if this made it into the milestone
>>>release.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yeah, it's strange isn't it. 
>>
> 
> 
> Not really. Another user agent change went into Mac builds. Mozilla 
> thinks it is a release upgrade and points to the "What's New" page set 
> by Netscape when the user shared his Mozilla profile with a Netscape 
> install. Doesn't seem very strange to me. Unfortunate that people don't 
> follow instructions and avoid sharing profiles between Mozilla and 
> Netscape but not strange.
> 

Okay, I understand that. The next logical question. Is there any 
user_pref to change the "Whats New" page?

- Pratik.

Mozilla 0.9.3/0.9.4 bookmark does not work.

[Yasuo Ohgaki]

Hello folks,

Is your mozilla's bookmark working fine?

I'm having verious problems with bookmarks. I take a look at bugzilla 
and found out there are many bug reports already, so I suppose 
developers are dealing with these problems.

I wondering if my problmes are worth reporting.

  - cannot change order of bookmark
or bookmarks are ordered wrong. (Not sorting. I'm trying to change
bookmark order for "unsorted")
  - cannot delete bookmarks. (Cannot delete bookmark at all)
  - problem persists even if I create and use new profile.

I'm using latest builds under Linux. These problems are around for a 
long time. I've used many latest mozilla builds, but it does not seem 
getting better.

Currently I'm using
  - Mozilla/0.9.4+ (2001091108)
  - Linux-2.4.x, gblic-2.2.x (Tried for both RedHat 7.1 and Kondara 2.0)

Because of these problems, bookmark is unusable for me.
There are many bug reports for bookmark, but none of them are the same 
as my problem, I think.

What do you think? Is this worth to report or it's happening to me only?

--
Yasuo Ohgaki

Re: Netscape 6 Problem

[Ian Winter]

Thank you for input. I followqed rge directions on that site, but i am still
having problems. When I click on a url in an e-mail messege MS explower
launches instead of Netscape ^. Is there some other problem?

"Christopher Jahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And it came to pass that Ian Winter wrote:
>
> > How to I get Netscape 6 to be my default browser. At the
> > moment when I click on an  web address in MS Outlook
> > express, Exploer opens to view it. I would like N6 to open
> > to view it.  How do I change the settings to do this.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
>
> Check the Netscape 6 section of the UFAQ:
> http://ufaq.org
>
> --
> }:-)   Christopher Jahn
> {:-( Dionysian Reveler
>
> On a clear disk you can seek forever.
>
> To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Christian Biesinger]

JTK wrote:

>>If we use that permission to change it to plain MPL now we
>>have given away that right, and then will have to seek permission from
>>contributors later to change from MPL to MPL/GPL.

> However, if you use that right to change them to plain GPL, or even
> LGPL, you'll have no need to seek any permission for anything.  Isn't
> true Freedom... liberating?

Doing this would make it illegal to release Netscape 6.something w/o 
releasing the sourcecode.

Re: Mozilla 0.9.3/0.9.4 bookmark does not work.

[Frederik Vos]

Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:

> Currently I'm using
>  - Mozilla/0.9.4+ (2001091108)
>  - Linux-2.4.x, gblic-2.2.x (Tried for both RedHat 7.1 and Kondara 2.0)
> 

> -- 
> Yasuo Ohgaki
> 

where did you get de 0.94 ??? It's still not released !!

regards
Frederik

Re: Mozilla 0.9.3/0.9.4 bookmark does not work.

[Christian Biesinger]

Frederik Vos wrote:

> Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> Currently I'm using
>>  - Mozilla/0.9.4+ (2001091108)
> where did you get de 0.94 ??? It's still not released !!

He's using a nightly build.
All nightly builds after 0.9.4 has branched have a version of 0.9.4+.

Re: The "Netscape 6.1" setup page is back with Mozilla build 2001091108

[Jason Johnston]

> 
> Okay, I understand that. The next logical question. Is there any 
> user_pref to change the "Whats New" page?
> 
> - Pratik.
> 



user_pref("startup.homepage_override_url", 
"http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/6_1/startuppage.html";);

That's the Netscape page; change it to what you want.
--J

Re: The "Netscape 6.1" setup page is back with Mozilla build 2001091108

[Pratik]

Asa Dotzler wrote:

> Brian Clark wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hey, this was gone for a while, and now it is back.  After installing
>>Mozilla 2001091108 on my MacOS 9.1 system, the first browser window
>>that opens up upon launch is the Netscape 6.1 setup page.
>>
>>I really don't mind, but is seems like it would be kind of embarassing
>>to the Mozilla organization if this made it into the milestone
>>release.
>>
>>Brian!
>>
>>
> 
> If you have ever shared your Mozilla profile with a Netscape application 
> you are likely to run into this and in some cases worse bugs.


You know what. I share the profile too and for some reason the start 
page I got today was http://www.mozilla.org/start. Much better than 
Netscape's startup page.

- Pratik.

Re: Netscape 6 Problem

[Ian Davey]

Ian Winter wrote:

> Thank you for input. I followqed rge directions on that site, but i am still
> having problems. When I click on a url in an e-mail messege MS explower
> launches instead of Netscape ^. Is there some other problem?

If setting it under View --> Advanced --> System doesn't work then it 
may just be the way Outlook handles URLs (i.e. it only wants to pass 
them to IE).

ian.

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[JTK]

Christian Biesinger wrote:
> 
> JTK wrote:
> 
> >>If we use that permission to change it to plain MPL now we
> >>have given away that right, and then will have to seek permission from
> >>contributors later to change from MPL to MPL/GPL.
> 
> > However, if you use that right to change them to plain GPL, or even
> > LGPL, you'll have no need to seek any permission for anything.  Isn't
> > true Freedom... liberating?
> 
> Doing this would make it illegal to release Netscape 6.something w/o
> releasing the sourcecode.

Nope.  Not if Mozilla was LGPLed.

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Gervase Markham]

>>Doing this would make it illegal to release Netscape 6.something w/o
>>releasing the sourcecode.

Just a clarification: Netscape does release the source code to the 
open-source parts of Netscape 6.

 
> Nope.  Not if Mozilla was LGPLed.


If Mozilla were only LGPLed, then this would cause a great deal of 
inconvenience to many of our distributors, who do not wish to refactor 
Mozilla into libraries to avoid having to open source code they do not 
wish to open source.

The added hoops this would make them jump through would not be conducive 
to the good of the project.

Gerv

Moving Mozilla outside of Application Data

[Jesse Houwing]

I've moved my profile to a different directory, but it was a lot of 
prefs.js hacking and I had to redo all my filters :(
And still every new profile I create still gets in the Application Data 
folder.

Isn't there a way I can move my mozilla profiles and get it updated 
automatically? Or in some structured way so it doesn't involve editing 
the prefs.js 20 times over...

Jesse

cookie problems?

[Ben Ruppel]

Hi, I'm having trouble connecting to my.monster.com .   It tells me that 
cookies are not enabled on my browser, while it says they are in 
preferences.  I'm visiting a friend (I'm across the street from the 
pentagon, actually) and I just downloaded mozilla to his computer 
tuesday, so I can't tell if it's something with this install, or with 
recent builds.  Anyone else see this?
-Ben

Re: cookie problems?

[Pratik]

Cookies are horked today

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99286

Looks like the bug just got fixed.

- Pratik.

Ben Ruppel wrote:

> Hi, I'm having trouble connecting to my.monster.com .   It tells me that 
> cookies are not enabled on my browser, while it says they are in 
> preferences.  I'm visiting a friend (I'm across the street from the 
> pentagon, actually) and I just downloaded mozilla to his computer 
> tuesday, so I can't tell if it's something with this install, or with 
> recent builds.  Anyone else see this?
> -Ben
> 
> 

How to force the back button in Netscape 6.1?

[Laura Luu]

Does anyone know how to force the 'BACK' button in Netscape 6.1?  I
currently have a hyperlink labeled 'GO BACK' that simply calls
history.back().  When I run my scripts (that contain combination of frame
and remote scripting), somehow the behavior of history.back() isn't quite
the same as pressing the browser's BACK button.  Netscape must have its own
way of keeping track of its own history list.  Intead of calling
history.back(), I would like to force it to behave as if I press the back
button on the browser.  How do I do that?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Gervase Markham wrote:

>>
>> Nope.  Not if Mozilla was LGPLed. 
> 
> If Mozilla were only LGPLed, then this would cause a great deal of 
> inconvenience to many of our distributors, who do not wish to refactor 
> Mozilla into libraries to avoid having to open source code they do not 
> wish to open source.

The LGPL would also prevent anyone from building Mozilla using MSVC++,
since the MSVC++ redistributables license disallows reverse engineering,
and the LGPL requires that that be allowed.

I see no advantage of licensing Mozilla using the LGPL that isn't also
covered by dual licensing Mozilla using the MPL/GPL. I do, however, see
disadvantages, including the Patent issue that the MPL covers.

And before anyone suggests it, licensing MPL/LGPL would be pointless,
since the MPL allows everything the LGPL allows and more -- MPL/LGPL would
merely be a nuissance to those who want to use it as GPL (since LGPL
allows you to assume the license is the GPL, but requires that you
change every file in the tree to say so).

See also: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

-- 
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.)   fL
   /. `- '  (  `--'
   `- , ) -  > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _  (.' \) (.' -' __

Re: Mozilla 0.9.3/0.9.4 bookmark does not work.

[Tom Christensen]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Frederik Vos wrote:
> 
> > Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> >> Currently I'm using
> >>  - Mozilla/0.9.4+ (2001091108)
> > where did you get de 0.94 ??? It's still not released !!
> 
> He's using a nightly build.
> All nightly builds after 0.9.4 has branched have a version of 0.9.4+.

Branche was closed on the 7th september when do they release 0.9.4. ?

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Frank Hecker]

Ian Hickson wrote:
 > And before anyone suggests it, licensing MPL/LGPL would be pointless,
 > since the MPL allows everything the LGPL allows and more

But IMO the MPL does not allow including Mozilla code in an LGPLed
library and distributing the resulting work under the LGPL, at least not
if one is concerned about "license compatibility" issues. (If one
accepts the argument that the MPL is in some sense "incompatible" with
the GPL, then I don't understand why it wouldn't also be "incompatible"
with the LGPL as well.)

 > MPL/LGPL would
 > merely be a nuissance to those who want to use it as GPL (since LGPL
 > allows you to assume the license is the GPL, but requires that you
 > change every file in the tree to say so).

I personally don't see any reason one could not combine code under the
GPL with code under the LGPL, leaving all license notices intact, and
then distribute the resulting work as a whole under GPL terms. To claim 
otherwise would seem to imply that doing this violates the terms of 
either the LGPL or GPL; on what grounds would this be true?

Frank
-- 
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Netscape 6 Problem

[Christopher Jahn]

And it came to pass that Ian Winter wrote:

> Thank you for input. I followqed rge directions on that
> site, but i am still having problems. When I click on a url
> in an e-mail messege MS explower launches instead of
> Netscape ^. Is there some other problem? 

Yes - you're using Outlook 5.5, which won't allow you to use a 
browser other than Explorer.  Downgrade to Outlook 5, or use a 
different mail client.

> 
> "Christopher Jahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> And it came to pass that Ian Winter wrote:
>>
>> > How to I get Netscape 6 to be my default browser. At the
>> > moment when I click on an  web address in MS Outlook
>> > express, Exploer opens to view it. I would like N6 to
>> > open to view it.  How do I change the settings to do
>> > this. 
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Check the Netscape 6 section of the UFAQ: http://ufaq.org
>>
>> --
>> }:-)   Christopher Jahn
>> {:-( Dionysian Reveler
>>
>> On a clear disk you can seek forever.
>>
>> To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
> 
> 



-- 
}:-)   Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
  
Knowledge is convoluted conviction.
 
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom

Re: Mozilla 0.9.3/0.9.4 bookmark does not work.

[Yasuo Ohgaki]

I'm really annoyied with bookmark problems, so I decided to see where 
could be wrong.

Wnen I take a look at bookmark.html in .mozilla//, I 
found there are *many* entries which has the *same* bookmark info. I 
deleted these bogus entries using editor. It seems bookmark is usable 
with 0.9.3 milestone build now. (Other versions, I don't know)

--
Yasuo Ohgaki

Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hello folks,
> 
> Is your mozilla's bookmark working fine?
> 
> I'm having verious problems with bookmarks. I take a look at bugzilla 
> and found out there are many bug reports already, so I suppose 
> developers are dealing with these problems.
> 
> I wondering if my problmes are worth reporting.
> 
>  - cannot change order of bookmark
>or bookmarks are ordered wrong. (Not sorting. I'm trying to change
>bookmark order for "unsorted")
>  - cannot delete bookmarks. (Cannot delete bookmark at all)
>  - problem persists even if I create and use new profile.
> 
> I'm using latest builds under Linux. These problems are around for a 
> long time. I've used many latest mozilla builds, but it does not seem 
> getting better.
> 
> Currently I'm using
>  - Mozilla/0.9.4+ (2001091108)
>  - Linux-2.4.x, gblic-2.2.x (Tried for both RedHat 7.1 and Kondara 2.0)
> 
> Because of these problems, bookmark is unusable for me.
> There are many bug reports for bookmark, but none of them are the same 
> as my problem, I think.
> 
> What do you think? Is this worth to report or it's happening to me only?
> 
> -- 
> Yasuo Ohgaki
> 

Tab key to the next link in source code?

[Richard]

Where in the source does mozilla handle the user pressing the tab key to
go to the next link on the page?

--
richard

Profile passwords.......

[Pristle]

The link,

http://home.netscape.com/communicator/v4.5/passwords/doit.html

was once the location to enable or disable profile passwords on a shared
machine. It is no more. Anyone know where this feature can be
enabled/disabled now? I am keen to re-enable the option on a new install
for both 4.7x and also 6.1


Cheers,

Paul

Inquiry

[Phillip T. McGrew]

I'm running Netscape Communicator 4.72 and have been for about five
years with few or no problems. Recently a problem came up that I have
been unable to solve. When I subscribe to a newsgroup, it disappears
from my subscribed list when I close Netscape and then reopen it. This
started happening about a week ago and I have no idea how to fix it. My
OS is Win98 2e and I'm not experiencing any other problems except for
this. Any replies would be appreciated.

Re: annoying bug

[You Know Who ~]

If it's a bug, they will likely take care of it without a "vote".

--
You Know Who~
``
"No matter how cynical you get,
it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

Cat stuff, Win Help & Purgatory @
http://home.att.net/~You_Know_Who/
`
"markus hübner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| a real obvious and annoying bug should get the attention!
| Vote on it to - http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showvotes.cgi?voteon=92248
|
| :: markus
|

Re: Inquiry

[Jay Garcia]

Phillip T. McGrew wrote:

> I'm running Netscape Communicator 4.72 and have been for about five
> years with few or no problems. Recently a problem came up that I have
> been unable to solve. When I subscribe to a newsgroup, it disappears
> from my subscribed list when I close Netscape and then reopen it. This
> started happening about a week ago and I have no idea how to fix it. My
> OS is Win98 2e and I'm not experiencing any other problems except for
> this. Any replies would be appreciated.
> 
> 

This group is dedicated to Mozilla Open Source development.

For Communicator issues, visit 
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.communicator

-- 
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

Re: annoying bug

[Mr Bluster]

You Know Who ~ wrote:

> If it's a bug, they will likely take care of it without a "vote".
> 
> --
> You Know Who~
> ``
> "No matter how cynical you get,
> it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin
> 
> Cat stuff, Win Help & Purgatory @
> http://home.att.net/~You_Know_Who/
> `
> "markus hübner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | a real obvious and annoying bug should get the attention!
> | Vote on it to - http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showvotes.cgi?voteon=92248
> |
> | :: markus
> |
> 
> 
> 

Oh for crying out loud Bernard, go crawl back in your hole.
AGAIN, you have no earthly idea of what you're talking about as usual.

/mr b

Re: The "Netscape 6.1" setup page is back with Mozilla build 2001091108

[Brian Clark]

> > 
> > If you have ever shared your Mozilla profile with a Netscape application 
> > you are likely to run into this and in some cases worse bugs.

This is the first time I have heard this!  If this is a serious issue,
why is it not publicized more?

Also, how do I manage more than one profile with Mozilla?  I see
something in my Mozilla folder called "Mozilla Profile Manager", but I
don't know how to make it work (it is not a program, but a component
of Mozilla).  I don't see a menu option for Profile Manager anywhere
in Mozilla either.  FYI:  I am running Mozilla on a MacOS 9.1 system.

Just as a side note, I would much rather not have to do this.  It is
much easier to maintain one profile and switch back and forth between
Mozilla and Netscape 6.1 as needed.  There are a few things Netscape
6.1 has that Mozilla does not have. The biggest one I have seen on the
Mac is stability.  The Mozilla 0.9.3 milestone release was not stable
at all for me.  Netscape 6.1 is.  I hope that 0.9.4 is better.  The
interim builds seem to be improved.  Also, there is no spell checker
in Mozilla, and Netscape has one.  That is important to me.

Brian!

Re: Mozilla 0.9.3/0.9.4 bookmark does not work.

[Michael Gratton]

Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:

> Hello folks,
> 
> Is your mozilla's bookmark working fine?


Nope, because of bug 95906:
   

It's sounds like its causing you some pain as well.

-- 
? Mike Gratton - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
! Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
 > http://web.vee.net/

Re: Mozilla 0.9.3/0.9.4 bookmark does not work.

[Asa Dotzler]

Tom Christensen wrote:

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> 
>>Frederik Vos wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>>>
Currently I'm using
 - Mozilla/0.9.4+ (2001091108)

>>>where did you get de 0.94 ??? It's still not released !!
>>>
>>He's using a nightly build.
>>All nightly builds after 0.9.4 has branched have a version of 0.9.4+.
>>
> 
> Branche was closed on the 7th september when do they release 0.9.4. ?
> 

when it's ready ;)  Actually very soon now.

--Asa

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Ben Bucksch]

Ian Hickson wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
>>Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>>>Is there a need (real or perceived) for Mozilla code to be
>>>distributable as an LGPL library?
>>>
>>Yes, for the same reason as to use it under GPL terms: In order to use 
>>it in LGPL projects.
>>
>Why do we care about LGPL projects and not, say, projects using the
>original BSD license, the Apache license, the Zope license, the IBM public
>license, the Qt public license, the Sun Industry Standards Source License,
>etc, etc, etc?
>
Are all of those accepted Open Source licenses? (esp. teh sun one.) If 
so, are they incompatible with the MPL in the sense that you cannot make 
a project out of source with mixed licenses? Even if so, they are not 
used as widely as thee LGPL.

For the record, the original BSD license (with advertizing clause) is 
now practically equvivalent to the new BSD license, to my understanding. 
IIRC, Mozilla even uses such source code.

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Frank Hecker]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Frank Hecker wrote:
> 
>>Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>>>And before anyone suggests it, licensing MPL/LGPL would be pointless,
>>>since the MPL allows everything the LGPL allows and more
>>>
>>But IMO the MPL does not allow including Mozilla code in an LGPLed
>>library and distributing the resulting work under the LGPL

Actually I should have said, "the LGPL does not allow ...". The MPL 
clearly allows MPLed code to be combined with other code and the product 
as a whole distributed under non-MPL terms. The question is whether the 
LGPL would allow MPLed code to be combined with LGPLed code (i.e., 
putting Mozilla code into an LGPLed library) and the resulting work 
distributed under LGPL terms (as required by the LGPL).

If one says "yes, this is certainly allowed, and does not violate the 
terms of the LGPL" then one is basically saying that the MPL is 
compatible with the LGPL in this sense. But that would seem to imply (at 
least to me) that the MPL is compatible with the GPL as well, i.e., that 
one could combine MPLed code with GPLed code (i.e., putting Mozilla code 
into a GPLed application) and distribute the resulting work under GPL 
terms (as required by the GPL).

But the FSF claims that this is not so, that the MPL is "incompatible" 
with the GPL, and thus you cannot combine MPLed code with GPLed code and 
distribute the resulting work without violating the terms of the GPL. 
And if the MPL is indeed incompatible with the GPL then I do not see how 
it could be compatible with the LGPL; what is different about the LGPL 
and the GPL in this regard?

So I must conclude that if indeed the MPL is incompatible with the GPL 
(as the FSF claims) then it is incompatible with the LGPL as well.

> More importantly, copyright law doesn't allow that (since that would
> involve changing the license terms).

I don't think it's a question of _changing_ license terms (as in 
stripping out license notices and replacing them with others), it's more 
a matter of allowing distribution under license terms other than those 
in the original license. Both the MPL and the LGPL contain language 
permitting this in certain specified circumstances, as long as certain 
requirements are met.

> Is there a need (real or perceived) for Mozilla code to be 
> distributable as an LGPL library?

I believe so. I can certainly conceive of someone wanting to take part 
or all of Mozilla (or at least Gecko) and embedding it in (or calling it 
from) an LGPL library that would be distributed under LGPL terms.

> As a user of such a library, why would you want to use
> the code as LGPL code rather than MPL code? 

Because using it (really, distributing it) under MPL terms wouldn't 
allow it to be included in an LGPLed library distributed under LGPL 
terms, _if_ you agree that the MPL is "incompatible" with the LGPL. (See 
above.)

> (Note that the LGPL is more restrictive than the MPL, which may be
> why a _distributor_ would want to do so, but in that case the point
> is moot since the code already exists under the less restrictive MPL.)

The point is not moot if the distributor can't take advantage of the MPL 
terms to include the code in a library distributed under LGPL terms.

Frank
-- 
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Frank Hecker]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> Why do we care about LGPL projects and not, say, projects using the
> original BSD license, the Apache license, the Zope license, the IBM public
> license, the Qt public license, the Sun Industry Standards Source License,
> etc, etc, etc?

Because nobody has ever claimed that the BSD license, etc., are 
"incompatible" with the MPL.

My point is very simple: The FSF claims (for whatever reason) that the 
MPL is "incompatible" with the GPL, and that therefore special 
accomodations have to be made in the Mozilla licensing scheme in order 
to permit people to use Mozilla code in GPLed applications without 
violating the GPL terms.

OK. So then I say in turn that if the MPL is "incompatible" with the GPL 
then it must be "incompatible" with the LGPL as well, and that therefore 
special accomodations have to be made in the Mozilla licensing scheme in 
order to permit people to use Mozilla code in LGPLed libraries.

If someone appears tomorrow and says that the MPL is incompatible with 
(say) the Zope license, and that we must make special accomodations to 
allow Mozilla code to be used in Zope-licensed applications, then we can 
consider doing that. But no one else (other than the FSF) has ever come 
to the Mozilla project and claimed that Mozilla's licensing terms were 
incompatible with the terms they were using for their own code.

> For that matter, why do we want to promote _any_ non-strong-copyleft
> projects, other than Mozilla itself?

This has nothing to do with promoting a particular philosophy of 
software licensing. It has everything to do with permitting Mozilla code 
to be used in as many different projects as possible, regardless of what 
licenses are being used for those projects' code.  In pursuing this goal 
I have no desire to promote any one license over any other license, and 
in particular I have no desire to promote the GPL over the LGPL; I'll 
leave that to the FSF.

Frank
-- 
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Ben Bucksch]

Frank, I don't know, if I misunderstood you (late here), so please 
excuse possible misunderstandings.

Frank Hecker wrote:

[MPL incompatible with GPL -> MPL incompatible with LGPL]

> I do not see how it could be compatible with the LGPL; what is 
> different about the LGPL and the GPL in this regard? 

What is different about GPL and LGPL is that the LGPL allows linking 
with non-(L)GPL code. So, if the Mozilla code is kwpt in a lib, it can 
be used together with another LGPL library and the executable could 
still be under an (almost) arbitary license. At least, that is my 
understanding. Not sure, if that is still the case, if the LGPL code 
(lib or main code) uses non-GPL code.

This are different, if you want to mix ccode parts, not just the whole libs.

> Because using it (really, distributing it) under MPL terms wouldn't 
> allow it to be included in an LGPLed library distributed under LGPL 
> terms, _if_ you agree that the MPL is "incompatible" with the LGPL. 
> (See above.)

In most cases (e.g. embedding Gecko), you'd use Mozilla code as complete 
lib, I think. So, you might be fine.

Still, reusing Mozilla code directly (as snipplets) in LGPL projects is 
IMO desirale. Especially, if we get it that cheap.

P.S. shoundn't we remove .general from disitribution now?

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Daniel Veditz]

Frank Hecker wrote:

> 
> IMO Section 3 was intended for a specific case, a case explicitly 
> addressed in Section 3: " This option [i.e., changing the license 
> notices] is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the Library 
> into a program that is not a library." But IMO it's not a general 
> requirement of the LGPL that this be done in all cases where works 
> containing LGPLed code are distributed under GPL terms.

We need to triple-license the code, MPL/GPL/LGPL.  MPL/GPL won't allow LGPL 
libraries to incorporate some of our code without having to switch to GPL, 
and MPL/LGPL wouldn't work for GPL'd projects that want to take a subset of 
Mozilla's code that doesn't hang together as a library.

-Dan Veditz

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Frank Hecker]

Gervase Markham wrote:
 >> I personally don't see any reason one could not combine code under the
 >> GPL with code under the LGPL, leaving all license notices intact, and
 >> then distribute the resulting work as a whole under GPL terms. To
 >> claim otherwise would seem to imply that doing this violates the terms
 >> of either the LGPL or GPL; on what grounds would this be true?
 >
 >
 > Section 3 of the LGPL?
 >
 > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html";>
 > 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
 > License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do
 > this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License,  ...

I know what Section 3 says. My point is, is it  _required_ as a 
condition of the GPL or LGPL that when code under the LGPL is combined 
with code under the GPL to create a work to be shipped under GPL terms, 
that the LGPL license notices must first be changed to GPL license notices?

For example, consider the case when you take the source code for a GPLed 
application and the source code for an LGPLed library used by the 
application. You compile all the code, link it together (let's say 
statically for the sake of argument), and distribute the resulting work 
under GPL terms (as required by the GPL). Are you (or Hixie for that 
matter) claiming that the GPL (or LGPL) requires that in order to do 
this one must (not may, _must_) physically change all the LGPL license 
notices in the library source files to GPL license notices first?

Frank
-- 
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Ian Hickson]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
>> The LGPL would also prevent anyone from building Mozilla using MSVC++,
>> since the MSVC++ redistributables license disallows reverse
>> engineering, and the LGPL requires that that be allowed.
>
> There're tons of (L)GPLed projects using MSVC++.

Many of these LGPL projects are probably breaking the law.

VC++ license, section 2.4:
# Microsoft grants you a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce
# and distribute the object code version of the VC Redistributables,
# including any modifications you make.

That's _it_. Microsoft grant you no rights other than reproduction and
distribution, and, as I understand it, you therefore cannot grant any more
rights to your own end users or their end users. However, the LGPL says
that the LGPL'ed project's end users (the authors of programs that use the
LGPL'ed library) must allow _their_ end users to reverse engineer their
program, which at this stage includes the MSVC++ code, which the end user
is not allwed to reverse engineer.

This causes a conflict, and section 11 of the LGPL explains how to deal
with these:

# If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
# obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then
# as a consequence you may not distribute the Library at all. 

Note that, ironically, this "problem" (not a problem IMHO -- don't use
Microsoft's programs) doesn't occur if you use only the GPL.


>> The only case where I can see a problem is where a specific LGPL
>> library wishes to use Mozilla's code directly (i.e., not linking to
>> it). Is there really such a case?
>
> I think so. That's the idea of open-source --

Screw open source. The idea of free software is that ALL users should be
able to run the source, study the source, adapt the source, and
redistribute the source. The LGPL should only be used when it can do this
better than the GPL -- namely, when the service that the library provides
is already commonly provided. The services that Mozilla provides do not
fall into that category, and therefore IMHO we have no need to be
promoting proprietary software.

See: 
   http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html


> to have a large pool of software you can use to build new projects.
> Let's say, I want to use the TXT->HTML converter in an LGPL project. I
> may have to change the string classes, but most of the code could be
> reused. I would not even be allowed to reuse a few lines, if it is
> under the MPL or the GPL only (ignoring that I happened to write it
> myself).

And that is exactly WHY I am against using the LGPL. An LGPL project
should NOT be using free software code. If the project wants the code that
much, it should switch to a strong copyleft free software license.


>> The GPL is pretty clear about it. Do you have any specific examples of
>> where you think it is unclear?
>
> Yes. Galeon, a GPL project, uses Mozilla libraries. In order to build 
> Galeon with Mozilla, would it have to change all Mozilla code or could 
> it be used unchanged?

The next four paragraphs come from:
   http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WritingFSWithNFLibs

If you want your program to link against a library not covered by that
exception, you need to add your own exception, wholly outside of the GPL.

Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize this
exception. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your
employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright
holder--so you can authorize the exception. But if you want to use parts
of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot
authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the
copyright holders of those programs.

When other people modify the program, they do not have to make the same
exception for their code--it is their choice whether to do so.

Adding this exception eliminates the legal issue, but does nothing about
the more serious problem of using a non-free library: your program won't
be fully usable in a free environment. If your program depends on a
non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free
World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, it cannot be
part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to
the Free World.

This is one of the main reasons we should move Mozilla to the GPL -- so
that this kind of problem does not arise.


>> I should also point out that my
>> overall opinion on this issue is that we should be pure GPL
>
> My personal opinion is that the GPL was poorly designed, because I think 
> that this very discussion should never have to happen. The GPL is, IMO, 
> not as free as other licenses.

You're right, it isn't. It was very carefully designed to make it
impossible to use GPL-covered software in proprietary environments.

   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Ian Hickson]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>>
>>>Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
 Is there a need (real or perceived) for Mozilla code to be
 distributable as an LGPL library?

>>> Yes, for the same reason as to use it under GPL terms: In order to use 
>>> it in LGPL projects.
>>>
>> Why do we care about LGPL projects and not, say, projects using the
>> original BSD license, the Apache license, the Zope license, the IBM
>> public license, the Qt public license, the Sun Industry Standards
>> Source License, etc, etc, etc?
>
> Are all of those accepted Open Source licenses? (esp. teh sun one.)

They come from the "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses" section of
the FSF license list:
   http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses


> If so, are they incompatible with the MPL in the sense that you cannot
> make a project out of source with mixed licenses? Even if so, they are
> not used as widely as thee LGPL.

Wait, I thought the problem was that you couldn't TAKE Mozilla code and
place it INSIDE some LGPL'ed code. As I have already mentioned, the MPL
and the LGPL can, as I understand it, quite happily co-exist in an
executable. It's only in a single source file that the problem occurs.

I am confused as to what problem you have with the LGPL that you don't
have with the other licenses.

-- 
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.)   fL
   /. `- '  (  `--'
   `- , ) -  > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _  (.' \) (.' -' __

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Frank Hecker wrote:
>
> Actually I should have said, "the LGPL does not allow ...". The MPL 
> clearly allows MPLed code to be combined with other code and the product 
> as a whole distributed under non-MPL terms.

This is different than relicensing the code. Both the MPL and the LGPL
allow code covered by them to be linked with other code under other
licenses. The GPL is the one which doesn't.

You can take MPL (or LGPL) code, link it with something, and distribute
that something, so long as you fulfill the conditions of the MPL (or LGPL)
part, which is mainly that you must provide the source code (the MPL and
LGPL have slightly different such requirements).

On the other hand, the GPL cannot be merged with any code other than GPL
code (except for OS and compiler libraries).


> The question is whether the LGPL would allow MPLed code to be combined
> with LGPLed code (i.e., putting Mozilla code into an LGPLed library)
> and the resulting work distributed under LGPL terms (as required by
> the LGPL).

The LGPL wouldn't care, as far as I can tell. However, since the MPL
doesn't let you relicense the code under another license, the MPL wouldn't
let you merge the MPL code with the LGPL code (in the same file, with
the license of the MPL code changed to the LGPL).


>> More importantly, copyright law doesn't allow that (since that would
>> involve changing the license terms).
> 
> I don't think it's a question of _changing_ license terms (as in 
> stripping out license notices and replacing them with others), it's more 
> a matter of allowing distribution under license terms other than those 
> in the original license. Both the MPL and the LGPL contain language 
> permitting this in certain specified circumstances, as long as certain 
> requirements are met.

The "specified" and "certain" being very specific and very broad
respectively.


>> Is there a need (real or perceived) for Mozilla code to be 
>> distributable as an LGPL library?
> 
> I believe so. I can certainly conceive of someone wanting to take part 
> or all of Mozilla (or at least Gecko) and embedding it in (or calling it 
> from) an LGPL library that would be distributed under LGPL terms.

Embedding Mozilla or Gecko inside another app or library, or calling it
from a library, doesn't involve merging the codebases, and therefore both
licenses don't care.

Actually putting the Mozilla code, e.g. parts of nsCSSRendering.cpp, into
an LGPL library, though, is not allowed, since the MPL doesn't grant you
the right to change your license, and the LGPL requires the library to be
under one license, the LGPL.


(IANAL, I am merely trying to apply logic to the text of the licenses...)

-- 
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.)   fL
   /. `- '  (  `--'
   `- , ) -  > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _  (.' \) (.' -' __

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Daniel Veditz]

Ben Bucksch wrote:
 >

> My personal opinion is that the GPL was poorly designed, because I think 
> that this very discussion should never have to happen. The GPL is, IMO, 
> not as free as other licenses.


Ssshh! The zealots might hear you!

Using the word "free" in conjunction with the GPL is sure to lead to 
confusion and argument. The GPL is indeed very restrictive on developers 
("not free" in that sense) in its attempt to preserve specific "freedoms" 
for the user/recipient of GPL'd programs (who might themselves be developers).

In its attempt to prevent combinations with licenses that might subvert the 
intentions of the GPL it also sometimes prevents combination with licenses 
compatible in spirit like the MPL as a side effect. In a sense the GPL is 
"allergic" to the MPL, a mistaken immune response to something otherwise 
harmless.

-Dan Veditz

Re: Licensing Statistics (2001-09-08)

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Frank Hecker wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> Why do we care about LGPL projects and not, say, projects using the
>> original BSD license, the Apache license, the Zope license, the IBM public
>> license, the Qt public license, the Sun Industry Standards Source License,
>> etc, etc, etc?
> 
> Because nobody has ever claimed that the BSD license, etc., are 
> "incompatible" with the MPL.

"The BSD license, etc., are "incompatible" with the MPL." (In that you
cannot cut and paste from one to the other, not in that you cannot link
code from one with another.)


> My point is very simple: The FSF claims (for whatever reason) that the 
> MPL is "incompatible" with the GPL, and that therefore special 
> accomodations have to be made in the Mozilla licensing scheme in order 
> to permit people to use Mozilla code in GPLed applications without 
> violating the GPL terms.

Yes. This is the difference between strong copyleft and weak copyleft --
the MPL can be used in proprietary programs, which the GPL cannot, and the
main way in which the GPL protects itself from such use is by making it
illegal to use non-GPL code (potentially proprietary code) together with
GPL code. Since the MPL is not the GPL, you cannot link them together.

This does not apply to the LGPL.


> OK. So then I say in turn that if the MPL is "incompatible" with the GPL 
> then it must be "incompatible" with the LGPL as well [...].

This doesn't follow. The GPL and LGPL are totally different licenses.


>> For that matter, why do we want to promote _any_ non-strong-copyleft
>> projects, other than Mozilla itself?
> 
> This has nothing to do with promoting a particular philosophy of 
> software licensing.

Maybe for you; for me that is a very important consideration.


> It has everything to do with permitting Mozilla code 
> to be used in as many different projects as possible, regardless of what 
> licenses are being used for those projects' code. 

If that is really the truth, then why are we not putting the Mozilla
source into the public domain? (Seriously.)

-- 
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.)   fL
   /. `- '  (  `--'
   `- , ) -  > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _  (.' \) (.' -' __