diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html | 268 |
1 files changed, 268 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5afb689 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html @@ -0,0 +1,268 @@ +<!--#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.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>On the Netscape Public License</h2> + +<p> +by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p> + +<div class="announcement"> +<blockquote><p> +(The <a href="/philosophy/netscape-npl-old.html"> original version</a> +of this article was written in March 1998 about a draft of the NPL. +Our first article on the subject was +<a href="/philosophy/netscape.html">Netscape is considering making +the Netscape browser free software</a>.)</p></blockquote> +</div> + +<p> +The Netscape Public License, or NPL, as it was ultimately designed in +1998, is a free software license—but it has three major flaws. +One flaw sends a bad philosophical message, another puts the free +software community in a weak position, while the third creates a major +practical problem within the free software community. Two of the +flaws apply to the Mozilla Public License as well. Because of these +flaws, we urge that you not use the NPL or the MPL for your free +software.</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—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—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> + +<p> +The MPL (Mozilla Public License) does <em>not</em> have this problem. +That is the principal difference between the MPL and the NPL.</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—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 X.org distribution terms do not +try to use copyleft at all, yet X.org is free software nonetheless. +BSD is also non-copylefted free software (although the older BSD terms +have a <a href="/licenses/bsd.html">serious drawback</a> and should +not be imitated—if you want to release non-copylefted free +software, please use the X.org terms instead). NPL-covered software +is also <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">free software</a> +without being copylefted, and this by itself does not make the NPL +worse than other non-copyleft free software license.</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 compatible with the GPL</h3> + +<p> +The most serious practical problem in the NPL is that 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—such as the +NPL.</p> + +<p> +Being incompatible with the GPL does not make a program nonfree; it +does not raise a fundamental ethical issue. But it is likely to +create a serious problem for the free software community, dividing the +code base into two collections that cannot be mixed. As a practical +matter, this problem is very important.</p> + +<p> +Solving this by changing the GPL is possible, but that would entail +abandoning copyleft—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>4. 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 our license is the GNU General +Public License, abbreviated GNU GPL. Sometimes people leave out the +word “GNU” and write just GPL.</p> + +<p> +(This is not a problem, just a fact that you should know.)</p> + +<h3>Conclusion</h3> + +<p> +Since problem 3 is the most serious, I hope that people will politely +and rationally explain to Netscape the importance of solving it. +Solutions are available; they just have to decide to use them.</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—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—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 & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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"><webmasters@gnu.org></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"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></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 © 1998, 2003, 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> |