Subject: Re: "Community Source License" vs. "Public License"
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:03:00 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "DJ" == DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:

    DJ> But, I also don't like the trend anyway.  Too confusing.  The
    DJ> NPL isn't the GPL, but people confuse them because the
    DJ> acronyms are similar.  Why couldn't they have called it simply
    DJ> "The Netscape License" (or more accurately, "The Mozilla
    DJ> License") ?

Any number of reasons, but one is probably that the namers wanted
exactly that confusion, either for PR reasons or (more charitably and
IMHO more likely) because they wished it could _be_ the GPL but the
legal (and presumably finance) beagles wouldn't let them go that far.

That's the way people are.  They like short evocative names rather
than long precise definitions, and the reason we're having
nomenclature discussions is to see if we can turn it to advantage.

We can't beat them; let's join them.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."