From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html | 268 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 268 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html') 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 @@ + + +Netscape Public License +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

On the Netscape Public License

+ +

+by Richard Stallman

+ +
+

+(The original version +of this article was written in March 1998 about a draft of the NPL. +Our first article on the subject was +Netscape is considering making +the Netscape browser free software.)

+
+ +

+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.

+ +

1. Not all users are equal

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ +

+The MPL (Mozilla Public License) does not have this problem. +That is the principal difference between the MPL and the NPL.

+ +

2. Not a copyleft

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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 serious drawback 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 free software +without being copylefted, and this by itself does not make the NPL +worse than other non-copyleft free software license.

+ +

+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.

+ +

3. Not compatible with the GPL

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.)

+ +

4. A note about names

+

+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.

+ +

+(This is not a problem, just a fact that you should know.)

+ +

Conclusion

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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:

+ +
+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.
+
+

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3