<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>Netscape Public License
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>

<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/netscape-npl.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>On the Netscape Public License</h2>

by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>

<div class="announcement">
(The <a href="/philosophy/netscape-npl-old.html"> original version</a>
of this article was written in March 1998 about a draft of the NPL.
Our first article on the subject was
<a href="/philosophy/netscape.html">Netscape is considering making
the Netscape browser free software</a>.)</p></blockquote>

The Netscape Public License, or NPL, as it was ultimately designed in
1998, is a free software license—but it has three major flaws.
One flaw sends a bad philosophical message, another puts the free
software community in a weak position, while the third creates a major
practical problem within the free software community.  Two of the
flaws apply to the Mozilla Public License as well.  Because of these
flaws, we urge that you not use the NPL or the MPL for your free

<h3>1. Not all users are equal</h3>

The first problem I noticed in the NPL was that it does not give
Netscape and the rest of us equal rights, as the GNU GPL does.  Under
the NPL, we can use Netscape's code only as specified in the NPL, but
Netscape can use our changes in any way at all—even in
proprietary licensed versions of the software.</p>

The problem here is subtle, because this does not make the program
nonfree.  It does not stop us from redistributing the program, or
from changing it; it does not deny us any particular freedom.
Considered from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, it may not look like a
problem at all.</p>

The problem lies in the deeper message embodied in this condition.  It
denies the idea of cooperation among equals that our community rests
on, and says that working on a free program means contributing to a
proprietary software product.  Those who accept this condition are
likely to be changed by it, and the change will not strengthen our

One proposed solution for this asymmetry is to put a time limit on
it—perhaps three or five years.  That would be a big improvement,
because the time limit would deny the problematical deeper message.</p>

The practical effects of this condition are minimized by another
drawback of the NPL: it is not designed as a thorough copyleft.  In
other words, it does not try very hard to ensure that modifications
made by users are available as free software.</p>

The MPL (Mozilla Public License) does <em>not</em> have this problem.
That is the principal difference between the MPL and the NPL.</p>

<h3>2. Not a copyleft</h3>

The NPL has the form of a copyleft; it explicitly says that all
modifications made by users must be released under the NPL.  But this
applies only to modifications to the existing code—not to added
subroutines, if they are put in separate files.  As a practical
matter, this means it is easy to make proprietary changes if you want
to: just put the bulk of your code into a separate file, and call the
collection a Larger Work.  Only the subroutine calls added to the old
files will have to be released under the NPL, and they will not be
very useful on their own.</p>

The lack of real copyleft is not a catastrophe; it does not make the
software nonfree.  For example, the X.org distribution terms do not
try to use copyleft at all, yet X.org is free software nonetheless.
BSD is also non-copylefted free software (although the older BSD terms
have a <a href="/philosophy/bsd.html">serious href="/licenses/bsd.html">serious drawback</a> and should
not be imitated—if you want to release non-copylefted free
software, please use the X.org terms instead).  NPL-covered software
is also <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">free software</a>
without being copylefted, and this by itself does not make the NPL
worse than other non-copyleft free software license.</p>

However, while this is not catastrophic, it is nonetheless a drawback.
And because the NPL looks like a copyleft, some users may be confused
about it, and might adopt the NPL, thinking that they are obtaining
the benefits of copyleft for their software, when that is not the
case.  To avoid this outcome, we will need to work hard to educate
people about an issue that is not easy to explain in a few words.</p>

<h3>3. Not compatible with the GPL</h3>

The most serious practical problem in the NPL is that it is
incompatible with the GNU GPL.  It is impossible to combine
NPL-covered code and GNU GPL-covered code together in one program, not
even by linking separate object files or libraries; no matter how this
is done, it has to violate one license or the other.</p>

This conflict occurs because the GPL is serious about copyleft: it was
designed to ensure that all changes and extensions to a free program
must be free.  So it does not leave a loophole for making changes
proprietary by putting them into a separate file.  To close this
loophole, the GPL does not allow linking the copylefted program with
code that has other restrictions or conditions—such as the

Being incompatible with the GPL does not make a program nonfree; it
does not raise a fundamental ethical issue.  But it is likely to
create a serious problem for the free software community, dividing the
code base into two collections that cannot be mixed.  As a practical
matter, this problem is very important.</p>

Solving this by changing the GPL is possible, but that would entail
abandoning copyleft—which would do more harm than good.  But it
is possible to solve this problem with a small change in the NPL.
(See below for a specific way of doing this.)</p>

<h3>4. A note about names</h3>
NPL stands for Netscape Public License, but GPL does not stand for GNU
Public License.  The full name of our license is the GNU General
Public License, abbreviated GNU GPL.  Sometimes people leave out the
word “GNU” and write just GPL.</p>

(This is not a problem, just a fact that you should know.)</p>


Since problem 3 is the most serious, I hope that people will politely
and rationally explain to Netscape the importance of solving it.
Solutions are available; they just have to decide to use them.</p>

Here is a possible way to permit linking NPL-covered code and
GPL-covered code together.  It can be done by adding these two
paragraphs to the NPL:</p>

A.1. You may distribute a Covered Work under the terms of the GNU
     General Public License, version 2 or newer, as published by the
     Free Software Foundation, when it is included in a Larger Work
     which is as a whole distributed under the terms of the same
     version of the GNU General Public License.

A.2. If you have received a copy of a Larger Work under the terms of a
     version or a choice of versions of the GNU General Public
     License, and you make modifications to some NPL-covered portions
     of this Larger Work, you have the option of altering these
     portions to say that their distribution terms are that version or
     that choice of versions of GNU General Public License.
This allows people to combine NPL-covered code with GPL-covered code,
and to distribute the combined work under the terms of the GNU GPL.</p>

It permits people to release modifications to such combined works
under the terms of the GNU GPL—but the easiest way to release
them is under the NPL.</p>

When people take advantage of A.2, their changes will be released only
under the terms of the GNU GPL; so these changes would not be
available for Netscape to use in proprietary versions.  It makes sense
that Netscape would see this as unfortunate.</p>

However, the NPL gives proprietary software developers an easy way to
make their changes entirely unavailable to Netscape—by putting
their code into separate files and calling the combination a Larger
Work.  In fact, this is easier, for them, than A.2 is for GPL

If Netscape feels it can live with the trouble of (effectively)
proprietary modifications, surely the trouble of GPL-covered
modifications is a small by comparison.  If Netscape believes that
practical considerations will encourage most of the proprietary
software world to release its changes back to Netscape, without being
compelled to, the same reasons ought to apply in the free software
world as well.  Netscape should recognize that this change is
acceptable, and adopt it, to avoid confronting free software
developers with a serious dilemma.</p>

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="unprintable">

<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>

<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
        replace it with the translation of these two:

        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
        to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">

        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
of this article.</p>

<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
     document was modified, or published.
     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->

<p>Copyright © 1998, 2003, 2007, 2013 2013, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>

<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>

<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->

<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2016/02/12 10:11:18 $
<!-- timestamp end -->