ANN: DocZilla Alpha 2 for WinNT/95/98 and Linux
heikki at citec.fi
Fri Jun 4 11:06:41 BST 1999
> And you also have a common misconception: The code that you
> have to give to your users has to be given under the NPL (or
> MPL). This means they are free to re-distribute that source code
> to whoever they like (i.e. there's no point in keeping your
> source code modifications private to just you and your users -
> you can't stop them putting it on a public ftp server). I found
> this out by discussing the issue with a Netscape lawyer on
I know that.
The code that is a Modification as explained in the license falls under NPL
(or MPL if that is what the original file used). That code must be made
available to your user, not everybody. The user is then free to do whatever
they want with the source, under the NPL or MPL. As you pointed out, they
can post it to a public ftp site if they want. But the code is not
automatically "public public" as in some other licensies. There is a certain
difference between CAN and MUST.
The code you develop that does not fall under NPL or MPL is nobody's
business but yours.
NPL and MPL are different from GPL for a good reason. I've already seen
product releases that use the Mozilla Public License that have nothing to do
with Mozilla or Netscape.
But this is getting off topic...
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev