Thank you very much for your kind help. Vaclav
"Daniel Veditz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> p�se v diskusn�m pr�spevku [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Simon P. Lucy wrote: > > > On 04/01/2002 at 17:57 Gervase Markham wrote: > > > >>>I am not sure about the licensing, so here are my questions: > >> > >>Your questions would be best answered by reading the license :-) It's > >>available at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ . We're happy to give you > >>advice on what we (and most other people) think it means if you like. > > > > The only thing I'd add is that in your acknowledgement of the > > mozilla/Netscape copyright that you also make it clear under which licence > > you are distributing the .so In other words, say you are using the MPL/NPL > > licence rather than the GPL. This is because the GPL does not recognise > > file boundaries and you want to exclude the possiblity that someone could > > claim your overall application was licenced in fact as GPL. > > > > Theoretically you could say the .so file was licenced under the LGPL, > > however, the clearest position is to use the original MPL/NPL licence. > > This means you can keep your own code/source etc under your own control. > > The license allows you to use the code under either license, but not both at > once. Pick one and follow those rules. If you pick GPL (which wouldn't fit > your stated purpose) you need to follow GPL rules which include things like > statements that the code is under GPL. If you pick MPL then you have to > follow MPL rules which say (section 3.6) "include a notice stating that the > Source Code version of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this > License" > > Either way you will be making clear which license you have chosen. > > -Dan Veditz >
