MozillaZine

Mozilla Mentioned In OSOpinion Article

Friday May 7th, 1999

Brendan Beej Dery writes, "I found a (comparably) short positive mention of Mozilla in an article about Linux, designed to cater to IT managers. The whole article is an interesting read, but for those of you who just want to read the bit about Mozilla, here's the link."


#1 Re:Mozilla Mentioned In OSOpinion Article

by *zilla

Saturday May 8th, 1999 7:27 AM

Reply to this message

Hmm, not surprising though. Linux lovers praise mozilla ;). Well I would like to know what you think about the mozilla lisense...

Since mozilla isn't copyleft everyone can hijack it and create an incompatible and non standard version(ain't it so?), i guess it will be the only browser war left after microsoft died and IE is just an old memory.

Netscape5 vs. Mozilla vs. AppleZilla vs. NeoZilla vs MicrosoftZilla vs.Joe's-home-hack-zilla

/what do you think?

#2 Re:Mozilla Mentioned In OSOpinion Article

by dveditz

Saturday May 8th, 1999 10:25 AM

Reply to this message

The forking issue is just as true with GPL code, the only difference being that with mozilla the differences may or may not get published and with GPL they MUST be. A fork is a fork is a fork, and just as bad with any license.

#3 Re:Mozilla Mentioned In OSOpinion Article

by dveditz

Saturday May 8th, 1999 7:29 PM

Reply to this message

To clarify my previous response, CHANGES to existing mozilla MUST be republished. The main difference from GPL is that there are circumstances where you can make proprietary ADDITIONS to your own mozilla-variant.

My point was that even copyleft is not sufficient to prevent incompatible versions. What will prevent forking is Mozilla.org doing a good job as custodians of the source. Web developers won't take advantage of new features in Joe's-hackZilla because not enough of their traffic has that version. And people won't have much incentive to switch because there's no content.

That said, free software evolves *because* people make non-standard versions. If those features are really cool then everyone will want to put them back into the mainline source, including the experimenter. If the mainline custodians are too boneheaded to recognize the coolness of the features that just about everyone else agrees should go in, then and only then is there much danger of a (significant) code fork.

If you want to discuss the Mozilla license further the best place is the netscape.public.mozilla.license newsgroup (also available as the mozilla-license mailing list). See <http://www.mozilla.org/community.html> for details.

#4 Re:Mozilla Mentioned In OSOpinion Article

by arielb

Saturday May 8th, 1999 8:15 PM

Reply to this message

As long as all these browsers are 100% w3c compliant by using gecko i don't see a problem for the web. In fact we may even see better w3c compliance with a forked gecko because people might want to add more css2, mathml etc after the official gecko feature freeze. The big question is how Netscape will deal with all these new features and what mozilla will do with no security.

#5 Re:Mozilla Mentioned In OSOpinion Article

by SomeSmartAss <improv@magma.ca>

Monday May 10th, 1999 6:45 PM

Reply to this message

There will inherintly be two forks automatically.

a) pure Mozilla. with no/international security and all non-proprietary code.

b) Netsape 5.0, with a North-American level of security, proprietary third-party bells and whistles (BitStream's TrueDoc for one) and a few other things thrown ion to boot (AOL's buddy-chat thing)

but, as long as Netscape proper doesn't break compliency issues, and keeps up with Mozilla-Pure releases, this shouldn't be a huge problem.