"Frank Hecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The intent of the MPL to allow licensees fairly wide scope to combine
> MPLed software with nonMPLed software to produce new works, at the risk
> of allowing some licensees to evade MPL requirements that require
> sharing of source code for modifications to MPLed software.
If this is such a case, then MPL doesn't provide any protection for OOP
code. And the question still remains:
"what would be my incentive to release any OOP code under MPL, if you could
subclass anything from my source code and claim that this is your original
work, and as such you don't have to release it as a modification? "
If this is true, then MPL fails big time as a license in its goal to ensure
that modifications go back to the community and becomes useless for me,
because it basically supports "free-riders" similarly to BSD.
If confirmed by MPL authors that this is the intent of MPL, then I would
recommend to anyone providing OOP code and interested that modifications to
their intellectual property go back to the community, to use LGPL or create
a derivative of MPL in which they would spell out that inheritance DOES
constitute a modification. I would be definitely recommending the above for
all JEDI work. And as the one who recommended MPL to the SynEdit team, I
would also make a similar recommendation there.
Let's see, if any of the MPL authors can clarify it.
--
Michael Beck (Team JEDI) http://delphi-jedi.org
http://www.geocities.com/beckmi/delphi.htm
