path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html

<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays licensing non-cpleft" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>On the Netscape Public License (Original Version)
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/netscape-npl-old.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>On the Netscape Public License (Original Version)</h2>

<address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></address>

<div class="infobox"><p>
<em>This article was written March 10-12 1998, about the
draft of the NPL which was available at that time.</em></p>
</div>
<hr class="thin" />

<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>

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<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 contributing 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 contributing 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, 2021 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: 2021/09/05 09:34:35 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>