Simon P. Lucy wrote: >Also if I have to licence using the GPL then I may be locked out of future >derivations of my own work. > Unlikely.
If it's a smaller change, that project would have to maintain the change as a patch, and maintaining patches is hell, as we experienced. If it is something larger, it probably involves new files, which could always be under different licenses. Forks are unlikely to survive, unless somebody strong backs it and/or mozilla.org does a very bad job. >A GPL forked version may add some feature. I cannot make use of that feature because >I cannot use the GPL licenced file, > That feature probably wouldn't exist, if the source were not open for GPL projects. >I can't even replicate the feature because it could be seen as a violation of the GPL >code. > I highly doubt that. GNU were in that very situation when replicating BSD/UNIX back then and I doubt that they are so evil to prevent what was the basis of their existnce. >there is no way to identify the use of the MPL licence at the time of use and that >has been the core of my objection all the time and no one has addressed that. > (Answered that in a preceeding mail.) >(Though I noticed that the Beonex run time licence includes the additional licence >language which confuses me) > The Beonex Comm. run-time license is plain MPL. Is there anything worng or problematic about it? I thought that Mozilla binaries were onder the exact same license.
