"Michael Beck \(Team JEDI\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If this is such a case, then MPL doesn't provide any protection for OOP
> code.
MPL is not intended to "protect" derived code in the CopyLeft sense.
It is not a copyleft license. You can always create non-free
derivatives of MPL'ed code. The non-free part must be in separate
files, but that is all. OOP doesn't really enter the question.
> 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? "
Basically the same as the incentive to release any other code under
MPL. If you want a copyleft license, you should use GPL or QPL.
> 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.
Or LGPL.
> 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.
LGPL doesn't "protect" against inheritance. You need a copyleft for that.
