This is not the case. Let's do a thought experiment: You have a file of code. You make three copies and put one of the license header from the MPL, LGPL and GPL on each one. Whenever you make changes to "the file", you update all three copies. If someone wants to use the file, he picks which copy to use. If you are, for example, Netscape,
If Netscape's flock of highly paid lawyers thought that there was even the smallest chance that this change would force them to open source the COOL components of AIM, which are part of Netscape 6, integrate with the AOL backend and which are a closely-guarded secret, do you think they would let it happen? There is no way this disjunctive tri-license can have a GPL-ising effect on your code if you are using the code under the MPL. You indicate this use by following the license conditions. > Although I do notice that the Notice language is still as full of > holes as before and developers can still legitimately remove the > GPL/LGPL language for their own uses, Yes, I believe that this is possible. Why is this a problem? > without of course being able > to contribute back. Given that developers own the copyright on their modifications and can license them any way they choose, how can they be prevented from contributing back? > So, what is the point of the NPL/MPL licence now? Many commercial companies are using, and will continue to use the code under these terms. Gerv
