summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html294
1 files changed, 294 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ecd02a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html
@@ -0,0 +1,294 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Netscape Public License
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/netscape-npl-old.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>On the Netscape Public License (Original Version)</h2>
+
+<p>
+by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a>
+</p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>This article was written March 10-12 1998, about the
+draft of the NPL which was available at that time.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+The Netscape Public License or NPL represents a serious attempt to
+design new free software distribution terms. It is an interesting
+attempt, but it has major flaws which need to be corrected. One flaw
+is so serious that we should regard it as making a program nonfree.
+The others have diverse consequences: one sends a bad philosophical
+message, while another creates a major practical problem for the free
+software community.</p>
+
+<p>
+The NPL is still a draft, and still being changed; the aim of this
+article is not to attack and condemn, but to encourage improvements in
+the NPL. If some of these problems have been corrected by the time
+you read this, so much the better, and we can put those obsolete
+issues aside.</p>
+
+<h3>1. Not all users are equal</h3>
+
+<p>
+The first problem I noticed in the NPL was that it does not give
+Netscape and the rest of us equal rights, as the GNU GPL does. Under
+the NPL, we can use Netscape's code only as specified in the NPL, but
+Netscape can use our changes in any way at all&mdash;even in
+proprietary licensed versions of the software.</p>
+
+<p>
+The problem here is subtle, because this does not make the program
+nonfree. It does not stop us from redistributing the program, or
+from changing it; it does not deny us any particular freedom.
+Considered from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, it may not look like a
+problem at all.</p>
+
+<p>
+The problem lies in the deeper message embodied in this condition. It
+denies the idea of cooperation among equals that our community rests
+on, and says that working on a free program means contributing to a
+proprietary software product. Those who accept this condition are
+likely to be changed by it, and the change will not strengthen our
+community.</p>
+
+<p>
+One proposed solution for this asymmetry is to put a time limit on
+it&mdash;perhaps three or five years. That would be a big
+improvement, because the time limit would deny the problematical
+deeper message.</p>
+
+<p>
+The practical effects of this condition are minimized by another
+drawback of the NPL: it is not designed as a thorough copyleft. In
+other words, it does not try very hard to ensure that modifications
+made by users are available as free software.</p>
+
+<h3>2. Not a copyleft</h3>
+
+<p>
+The NPL has the form of a copyleft; it explicitly says that all
+modifications made by users must be released under the NPL. But this
+applies only to modifications to the existing code&mdash;not to added
+subroutines, if they are put in separate files. As a practical
+matter, this means it is easy to make proprietary changes if you want
+to: just put the bulk of your code into a separate file, and call the
+collection a Larger Work. Only the subroutine calls added to the old
+files will have to be released under the NPL, and they will not be
+very useful on their own.</p>
+
+<p>
+The lack of real copyleft is not a catastrophe; it does not make the
+software nonfree. For example, the XFree86 distribution terms do not
+try to use copyleft at all, yet XFree86 is free software nonetheless.
+BSD is also non-copylefted free software (although the BSD terms have
+a <a href="/licenses/bsd.html">serious drawback</a> and should not
+be imitated&mdash;if you want to release non-copylefted free software,
+please use the XFree86 terms instead). Netscape software can also
+be <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">free software</a> without
+being copylefted.</p>
+
+<p>
+However, while this is not catastrophic, it is nonetheless a drawback.
+And because the NPL looks like a copyleft, some users may be confused
+about it, and might adopt the NPL, thinking that they are obtaining
+the benefits of copyleft for their software, when that is not the
+case. To avoid this outcome, we will need to work hard to educate
+people about an issue that is not easy to explain in a few words.</p>
+
+
+<h3>3. Not respecting privacy</h3>
+
+<p>
+The next problem in the NPL is a show-stopper: if you make a change,
+you are required to publish it. Private changes for your own use are
+not allowed; distributing a change only to a few friends is also
+forbidden.</p>
+
+<p>
+When we think about the issues of free software, we usually focus on
+the freedom to distribute and modify, because this is what software
+developers most often try to prevent. But the freedom NOT to
+distribute a copy, when you don't wish to, is also important. For
+example, the freedom to make a modification and not show it to anyone
+is part of what we call &ldquo;privacy.&rdquo; The freedom to
+distribute your modification to a few friends, but not show it to the
+general public (or not show it YET) is also essential. (Of course, if
+the program is free, your friends will be free to pass it on to others
+if they want to&mdash;but they will not be required to.)</p>
+
+<p>
+Correcting the NPL to respect this basic freedom is absolutely
+essential, and our community must insist firmly on this. It is not
+worth sacrificing a vital freedom for one additional program, no
+matter how useful and exciting it may be.</p>
+
+<h3>4. Not compatible with the GPL</h3>
+
+<p>
+There is one other serious problem in the NPL: it is incompatible with
+the GNU GPL. It is impossible to combine NPL-covered code and GNU
+GPL-covered code together in one program, not even by linking separate
+object files or libraries; no matter how this is done, it has to
+violate one license or the other.</p>
+
+<p>
+This conflict occurs because the GPL is serious about copyleft: it was
+designed to ensure that all changes and extensions to a free program
+must be free. So it does not leave a loophole for making changes
+proprietary by putting them into a separate file. To close this
+loophole, the GPL does not allow linking the copylefted program with
+code that has other restrictions or conditions&mdash;such as the
+NPL.</p>
+
+<p>
+Being incompatible with the GPL does not make a program nonfree; it
+does not raise a basic ethical issue. But it is likely to create a
+serious problem for our community, dividing the code base into two
+collections that cannot be mixed. As a practical matter, this problem
+needs to be solved.</p>
+
+<p>
+Solving this by changing the GPL is possible, but that would entail
+abandoning copyleft&mdash;which would do more harm than good. But it
+is possible to solve this problem with a small change in the NPL.
+(See below for a specific way of doing this.)</p>
+
+<h3>5. A note about names</h3>
+
+<p>
+NPL stands for Netscape Public License, but GPL does not stand for GNU
+Public License. The full name of the our license is the GNU General
+Public License, abbreviated GNU GPL. Sometimes people leave out the
+word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; and write just GPL.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>
+Since problems 3 and 4 are the most serious, I hope that people will
+politely and rationally explain to Netscape the importance of solving
+them. Solutions are available; they just have to decide to use them.
+There is talk that Netscape has decided to correct problem 3&mdash;but
+letting them know this is important to you can't do any harm. There
+is no word that they plan to correct problem 4.</p>
+
+<p>
+Here is a possible way to permit linking NPL-covered code and
+GPL-covered code together. It can be done by adding these two
+paragraphs to the NPL:</p>
+
+<pre>
+A.1. You may distribute a Covered Work under the terms of the GNU
+ General Public License, version 2 or newer, as published by the
+ Free Software Foundation, when it is included in a Larger Work
+ which is as a whole distributed under the terms of the same
+ version of the GNU General Public License.
+
+A.2. If you have received a copy of a Larger Work under the terms of a
+ version or a choice of versions of the GNU General Public
+ License, and you make modifications to some NPL-covered portions
+ of this Larger Work, you have the option of altering these
+ portions to say that their distribution terms are that version or
+ that choice of versions of GNU General Public License.
+</pre>
+<p>
+This allows people to combine NPL-covered code with GPL-covered code,
+and to distribute the combined work under the terms of the GNU
+GPL.</p>
+
+<p>
+It permits people to release modifications to such combined works
+under the terms of the GNU GPL&mdash;but the easiest way to release
+them is under the NPL.</p>
+
+<p>
+When people take advantage of A.2, their changes will be released only
+under the terms of the GNU GPL; so these changes would not be
+available for Netscape to use in proprietary versions. It makes sense
+that Netscape would see this as unfortunate.</p>
+
+<p>
+However, the NPL gives proprietary software developers an easy way to
+make their changes entirely unavailable to Netscape&mdash;by putting
+their code into separate files and calling the combination a Larger
+Work. In fact, this is easier, for them, than A.2 is for GPL
+users.</p>
+
+<p>
+If Netscape feels it can live with the trouble of (effectively)
+proprietary modifications, surely the trouble of GPL-covered
+modifications is a small by comparison. If Netscape believes that
+practical considerations will encourage most of the proprietary
+software world to release its changes back to Netscape, without being
+compelled to, the same reasons ought to apply in the free software
+world as well. Netscape should recognize that this change is
+acceptable, and adopt it, to avoid confronting free software
+developers with a serious dilemma.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 1998, 2007, 2013, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/12/14 09:55:38 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>