Does that even make sense as a reason to spin off Mozilla? If Netscape 5.0 is built on a Mozilla that contains patented code Netscape will get sued anyway--they're the deep-pockets.

Netscape has to take reasonable care to keep tainted code out of its browser either way, and it's easier to keep it out of the codebase than to try to strip it out as part of the build process or as a custom "Modification".

This is just Jamie ranting and raving - nothing new about that. Take everything he says with a grain of salt, and the world will be a happier place.

What processed is used to ensure that prorietary code is not introduced into Mozilla?

This Ben Elgin guy blew what I said way out of proportion.

The ZDnet article begins:

But living under the same roof almost brought things to a boil last month, when Netscape considered severing all financial ties with Mozilla.org, Sm@rt Reseller has learned. Under the plan, Netscape would have spun Mozilla.org -- the group charged with leading community development of its one-time browser -- into a non-profit organization.

First of all, I didn't say this happened last month, nothing "boiled." This is something that has been being considered since january, before the outside world had ever heard the name "mozilla.org". It has never been given much priority, but it has been discussed on occasion. In particular, this has absolutely nothing to do with the AOL deal.

Someone asked a question about whether mozilla.org would ever spin off, and I said that it was possible, because such a thing had been discussed. That's all.

Second, "severing all financial ties" sure sounds like "cutting off funding" to me, which wouldn't be the point of this at all, and certainly wasn't even suggested in any of the conversations about this in the past.

PS: blow me, Angus.

More ZD|FUD. What a load of baloney.

They take half a quote, use it entirely out of context... And generate more hits for their site, usually from easily-excited Slashdot readers who click before they think. And who thereby (perhaps unwittingly) help spread the FUD even furthur and help finance more of the same, to boot.

First off, ZDNet has always struck me as the equivalent of a tabloid. The 'Hollywood Insider' of Silicon Valley, if you will. Headlines scream "JWZ in open source love-spat with Netscape! 'What about the children?' say close friends of the couple."

FUD? More like the typical "we aren't really a part of this culture, but we like to pretend we are." all media are famous for.

I read ZD to be bemused, not informed. I suggest everyone do the same and the world will be a better place.