StarOffice under the GPL ?

[Ravi Nanavati]

Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > There *is* a Sun Public License modeled
> > after the NPL, pretty much s/Netscape/Sun/, which Netbeans was released
> > under (www.netbeans.org).
> 
> Sorry, my bad, the Sun Public License is a verbatim (except for
> substitution of the terms "Mozilla" and "Netscape" with the term "Sun" and
> addition of "documentation" to the list of covered items) copy of the
> Mozilla Public License, NOT the Netscape Public License.  The NPL is not
> an open source license, because it has language that carves out some
> redistribution rights for Netscape, which the MPL does not.
> 
>         Brian

This comment surprised me. I had thought the NPL was an 
open-source license. I certainly understand the position that
the NPL is an inequitable license because Netscape has rights
that other contributors do not, but I just looked at the OSD 
and see what part of it the NPL fails to satisfy. Even RMS 
considers the NPL a free software license (a flawed free software
license, but a free software license, nevertheless - at least 
according to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.html). 
Could someone please clarify exactly what is unacceptable about
the NPL?

 - Ravi Nanavati