Re: intent to package Netscape Communicator
On Apr 04, Kai Henningsen decided to present us with:
> email@example.com (Adam Heath) wrote on 03.04.98 in <Pine.LNX.3.96.980403124308.16203Afirstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > I intend to package the new communicator that allow free redistribution. It
> > will go into non-free(no source), but at least the users won't have to
> > download the tarball themselves.
> How do you plan to fulfill the reporting requirements?
> Remember the "unlimited distribution" license says you have to report to
> Netscape the number of distributed copies, every quarter.
I'm afraid communicator does not fit even for non-free. It's not
just a matter of no source; there's the reporting requirements
(Clause 4), and there is something in Clause 1 I dislike a lot:
... Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the
contrary, this Agreement shall remain in effect only until
such time as Microsoft Corporation ceases to distribute free
of charge products with features comparable to the Netscape
client products. In such event, Netscape shall provide
Applicant with 90 days' prior written notice and this
Agreement shall expire on the end of said 90-day notice
IMHO this just plain sucks as far as DFSG are concerned. Even
for non-free. As much as many people dislike MS (including me),
I don't think this attitude is something we should support to
any extent. Pity; it would be cool to have Communicator in CDs.
But this smells like users will have to wait for Slink to get a
stable version of Mozilla (and gtk-based by then, I hope).
Maybe we could make ".diff.gz" and ".dsc" available, and
incentivate CD vendors (in the README or maybe elsewhere) to
package their own? CD vendors are likely capable of reporting to
Howling to the moonlight on a hot summer night...
pgp key in the web page
Free Software Union -- http://www.fslu.org
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org