MPL2
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Mozilla Public License 2.0 has been released:
https://mpl.mozilla.org/2012/01/03/announcing-mpl-2-0/
I was wondering if this might sort out the issues that previously required Firefox to be distributed as unbranded/rebranded - Abrowser, IceCat, Iceweasel, etc.
Any thoughts here?
I don't think it will fix those issues. Those are trademark issues not software licensing issues. Basically mozilla owns the trademark to firefox and they say that if you modify the firefox source code you can't call it firefox.
We have to modify the source because by default firefox recommends non-free software.
Just to clarify what you wrote:
The trademark policy is not regarded as an issue by Trisquel (or the FSF). Debian considers it an issue though (they want to be able to modify the browser even without contacting Mozilla). Recommending non-free software *is* an issue from Trisquel's perspective. Fixing it requires modifying the browser, hence another name for the result (respecting the trademark policy).
For a non-profit organization that acts like they are "just like the rest of us", they sure spend a LOT of money. For what actually? Their browser relies on volunteers to contribute code for free so they can take that work, throw it behind a restrictive license, and pay their higher ups 6 figure salaries. It is obvious what the recent 1 billion dollars from Google went towards. Don't be fooled.
All for a web browser. Heck, between the MPL and their bureaucratic policies, how is this browser any better from an "open" standpoint than Chromium? I know you guys once had a comparison of sketchy libraries in Chromium that may or may not be free software, but at least it is under a BSD license.
Firefox is bleeding marketshare at this point and they hit their peak years ago. It is only a matter of time before they are irrelevant.
What are the issues with the MPL?
I am a translator!
What are you talking about, "how is this browser any better than Chromium"? Forget Chromium man, forget everything else. There is ONLY Firefox. They have one issue, their browser eats up a bit more RAM than many others. But it displays websites correctly. That's right, Firefox is the only browser that displays websites 100% correctly, everyone else has some issues, big or small. It's the standard everyone has to reach when building a browser, Firefox's support for W3C standards is the best overall!
As a web developer, I can tell you, my HTML+CSS always starts working in Firefox first, everything else second, and IE last. Firefox interprets even faulty code correctly, just as I meant it originally. Who cares that it has to be rebranded? I don't.
And by the way, if there will be a browser that is as good as Firefox in displaying webpages, it will have to have these features as well, just to get to the level where Firefox already is (since long):
- perfect integration into every OS theme by tons of Firefox themes
- a gazillion of very useful (and in many cases almost required) addons that are updated on a regular basis
Google also increasingly adds non-standard extensions to the Web formats and sell them as unique capabilities of Chrome. That is why some people fear it will become the new IE6: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397158,00.asp
The recent deal with Google is about less than 300 million dollar a year during three years.
The Mozilla Corporation has about 600 employees if I believe one of them: http://twitter.com/#!/paulrouget/status/116110841669099520
As for the major difference with Google, it is there: https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.html
Some thoughts here:
Out of the licences, I'm kinda liking Apache 2.0 the best at the moment. It is not only compatible with GPL v3, but I can use code in a proprietary application for mine or other company work without disclosing source code. Heck, if someone forks me they can use whatever licence they want. I don't think you can do that with GPL or MPL.
I know most of you want everything in GPL, but sometimes Apache has the most flexibility on the direction you want to take your software.
You cannot do that with the GPL or the MPL. That is the whole idea of the copyleft (for the MPL, the copyleft is per-file only): the piece of code distributed under these licenses will always be free.
Although there are some rare exceptions (for instance if the format for the data is more important than the software itself), I would personally always prefer the GPL (LGPL if it is a library with an equivalent in the proprietary hell) to a more permissive license such as the Apache license. If I release a software development (which I do by the way), I want the user to be free forever. In particular, I do not want her to be tempted by someone else proposing, under a proprietary license, my work + a few tiny additions (including a spyware?) that make the result more attracting. This happens with permissive licenses and I actually wonder whether it is not your business model I am describing.
Your attitude that consists in refusing your clients to access the source code (to know what *their* computer are actually running to achieve *their* work, to potentially change the company supporting the software, etc.) simply inspires me disgust.
I am a member!
While you have good points I'm pretty sure you can add spyware to a free software licensed program and still comply with the free software license. You would simply need to release the spyware under a similar license. It may never see the light of day in any repository... but you can do it and if people download your package...
Sticking to the repository is always a smart move for people who don't know what they are doing.
By definition, what you add to a copylefted piece of free software must be distributed under the same free software license. So anybody can read what was added (freedom 1) and that would be completely fool for a company to add a malware. Just imagine its reputation once someone discovers it (by simply reading the source code).
With permissive licenses (such as the Apache license), you can redistribute the whole under a proprietary license. With no access to the source code. That is what t3g is promoting. And in this situation, you simply cannot tell what was added. It may be a spyware, a backdoor, etc. Only the developer knows and ends up with an unethical power over the users, who are those who achieve their work through the software.
That said, it is indeed safer to stick to what the repositories offer. Small unknown free applications have usually been only read by their authors. That is why there is a risk. Far smaller than in the case of proprietary software. But a risk anyway.
Interesting about the vagueness about Google Chrome since I just read this the other day: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397158,00.asp
Hey, just look at the Google Chrome logo.
It's an EYE. And it's LOOKING AT YOU.
Don't use it.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios