httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: pthreads update
Date Tue, 21 Apr 1998 05:19:39 GMT
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Frank Faubert wrote:

> >If you lived in Quebec you wouldn't have to worry because companies in
> >Quebec can only use french versions of software without special government
> >permission.
> >
> Heh, then my last name would probably pass spell check :)
> >Some companies may need to make more significant NSPR changes for needed
> >internal functionality.  Under the NPL, they must document and distribute
> >those changes, even if they are only internal use, right?  I'm not sure
> >that thrills me.
> >
> I'm not sure about that... Section 3.2 of the NPL says:
> ----
> Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made
> available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the
> same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic
> Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version
> available.
> ----
> So it could be made available on an internal site if it is only for internal
> use.  Then again, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have a legal background, so I'm
> 100% sure.

Read section 3.1:

    3.1. Application of License. 
    The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are
governed by the terms of this License, including without
    limitation Section 2.2. The Source Code version of Covered Code may be
distributed only under the terms of this License or a
    future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You
must include a copy of this License with every copy of the
    Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or impose any terms on
any Source Code version that alters or restricts the
    applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights
hereunder. However, You may include an additional document offering
    the additional rights described in Section 3.5. 

This seems to say that any changes you make must be put under 
the NPL, which means distributable.  I don't see it saying they
must be distributed, but if someone does manage to get them through
any process, then it would seem like you can't stop the world from
using the code.

Section 2.2b is interesting.  So if you write some code that
extends Mozilla then get a patent for it later down the road, you
have given away the right for your patent to be used by the code
you wrote without limitation.  Hmm.  And it seems to say the same
thing applies to any patents owned by any company with more than
50% of your shares.  Now if those rights aren't yours to give away
then Netscape has no right to them, all they can complain is that
you violated the license.  But note further that you can't even
play with that code yourself if it may violate a patent, epsecially
if it is one that your company could have some legal right to, even if
you don't know about it or it doesn't exist a the time.  Some of this
can be ripped apart by lawyers I would guess, but it still makes 
me uneasy.  But note that I haven't read it in depth so I could
be misinterpreting it.

Oh yea, did you know that Ritchie or someone has a patent on 
making things setuid?  <g>

My main concern is the complexity of the license and the extent to 
which Apache would be tied to it.  There is no concern for the rest
of the Apache code being pulled in, like the GPL would give, but
there is concern for it being useless.  If we ever did get 
together, going through the license step by step could be handy.

>From the FAQ:

	If you are writing something that you don't want to be governed by
	the NPL, then you must make sure that it is not a ``modification''
	under the definitions of the NPL.

>From what I have seen, which isn't much, I fully support using NSPR.
However, I think there are issues that have to be at the least understood
before we commit ourselves.

View raw message