The licenses used in Mozilla apply to individual source files; a person distributing mfcembed would have to comply with the union of requirements. For practical purposes that would mean you'd only have to worry about the MPL terms (the tri-license headers give you a choice of license terms, I assume you'd choose the least restrictive).
Chak should have used the Mozilla Public License instead of NPL for new code, but it's possible those files were derivatives of code elsewhere in the tree in which case he would have to keep the original license. That would also explain why those files are not instead under the MIT-like license used in some of the other files. -Dan Veditz Per Lundberg wrote: > Hello, > > I asked in another group but this is probably a better place. What is > the intended license of the mfcembed program? In mfcembed.cpp I see this: > > * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a > * copy of this Mozilla sample software and associated documentation files > * (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including > * without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > * distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit > * persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the > * following conditions: > * > * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included > * in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > * > * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS > * OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, > * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL > * THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER > * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING > * FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER > * DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > > In other words, a standard MIT license. But some other files in the > same directory, even files written by the same person, look like this: > > * Version: NPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 > * > * The contents of this file are subject to the Netscape Public License > * Version 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in > * compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at > * http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/ > * > * Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" basis, > * WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License > * for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the > * License. > * > * The Original Code is mozilla.org code. > * > * The Initial Developer of the Original Code is > * Netscape Communications Corporation. > * Portions created by the Initial Developer are Copyright (C) 1998 > * the Initial Developer. All Rights Reserved. > * > * Contributor(s): > * Chak Nanga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * > * > * Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of > * either the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL"), or > * the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL"), > * in which case the provisions of the GPL or the LGPL are applicable instead > * of those above. If you wish to allow use of your version of this file only > * under the terms of either the GPL or the LGPL, and not to allow others to > * use your version of this file under the terms of the NPL, indicate your > * decision by deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice > * and other provisions required by the GPL or the LGPL. If you do not delete > * the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this file under > * the terms of any one of the NPL, the GPL or the LGPL. > > So, which goes? The MIT license is far less restrictive than even the > LGPL and I think this may be what the authors intended... but the > current situation (in my 1.2.1 tree) is a bit unclear. Any clues? >
