Are you "distribut[ing] Covered Code in Executable form"? :-) I would say you are, and so then yes.
I wasn't sure if that applied to people unconnected to than the developer.
If the license doesn't apply to you, then under what rights are you using the code at all? :-)
If you are distributing it, it applies to you.
As I said, we did not produce the executable, we only downloaded it from the producer's site. (Complying would not be simple under our circumstances.)
You need to include a notice, as outlined in 3.6, saying where to get the source code for the version you are distributing.
For the first part of 3.6, would including a file in the same directory that we initially put SAXON in named, say, SAXON.txt be enough? Would it need to mention the MPL, or just say that the source is available, and give links to the Terms of Use and Home pages for SAXON?
You _need_ to do exactly what it says in the license. In terms of what you should do, then a URL, some explanatory text and a copy of the Saxon MPL would probably be sensible.
Would we need to put this on the machine of those clients to whom we've already sent / installed the program? That could be messy.
Well, yes :-)
Regarding the next part, although our software as a whole has, I'm sure,
lots of licensing and disclaimers, I don't think that we are charging for or
licensing the SAXON tool.
That makes no difference to the MPL licensing terms.
The entire use of the tool consists of a system call by one DLL in one part of our system for a few clients, and perhaps making it available to others to use on their own or under direction. The actual process of downloading, installing, researching, testing, etc. would be included in our charges where they are time-related, but the same would apply to a totally proprietary product. So does the rest of 6.2 apply to us?
6.2? "Effect of New Versions."?
Michael, I'm happy to answer questions on what the license means in general, but it does seem like you are trying to work out how many bits of the license you can avoid complying with - and you are probably better off asking a lawyer that question.
Gerv
