132 lines
8.4 KiB
HTML
132 lines
8.4 KiB
HTML
<HTML>
|
|
<HEAD>
|
|
<LINK REL="stylesheet" HREF="..\DclStyle.css">
|
|
<TITLE>MPL FAQ</TITLE>
|
|
</HEAD>
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
|
|
<FONT SIZE="+2"><B>Mozilla Public License FAQ</B></FONT><BR>
|
|
<B>Draft 1.0, 4/10/2000</B>
|
|
</P>
|
|
<P><HR WIDTH="20%"><P>
|
|
Please email Comments to <A HREF="mailto:mbeck@bigfoot.com">Michael Beck</A><BR>
|
|
For additional information, please also check the <A HREF="http://www.mozilla.com/MPL/FAQ.html">Official FAQ from Mozilla</A>
|
|
|
|
<H3>Author perspective</H3>
|
|
<OL>
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> Do I retain copyright once I publish source under the MPL?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> Absolutely. You still retain all your copyrights.
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> Can I release the code under a different (possibly commercial type) license?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> Yes. Since you have the original copyright, you can do it, but you can do
|
|
it only for your own code, and not for any contributions from others.
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> In two years Acme, Inc. comes with a great new license, which I would love
|
|
to use. Am I always bound to MPL for my released code?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> You can use a Dual License approach, i.e. you keep the code under MPL, and
|
|
you add another license, e.g. GPL. The user will have then the option to use
|
|
the one s/he prefers.<BR>
|
|
Or, as the Initial Contributor, with the original copyright, you can release
|
|
it under the other license. Please note: even if you release the code under
|
|
new license, users of your original MPL-released code can continue to use
|
|
under MPL as before.
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> I think, JEDI could benefit from having cryptographic functions. I would
|
|
like to donate some (DES, Tripple DES etc.), which are covered by patent
|
|
rights (RSA, for example)? How should I do it?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> All contributions are "Subject to third party intellectual property (IP)
|
|
claims." Thus, if you are aware of any patents infringements, before
|
|
submitting make sure that you:
|
|
<UL>
|
|
<LI> secure the rights to use the IP in your contribution (e.g. by paying
|
|
a fee)
|
|
<LI> modify the code so it doesn't infringe (in our case, provide other,
|
|
non-patented cryptographic functions)
|
|
<LI> in a worst case scenario, if the two above are not possible, do not
|
|
submit the code
|
|
</UL>
|
|
Please note: different countries may have different patents laws. Therefore
|
|
in some countries it could be legal to use patented IP (e.g. because the
|
|
patent expired), while in others not. Check with your local Patent Office.
|
|
</OL>
|
|
|
|
<H3>User perspective</H3>
|
|
<OL>
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> Can I use the MPL code in commercial software? If yes, am I obligated to
|
|
credit the author?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> Yes, you can use the MPL code in any commercial software. Since you have
|
|
to include the MPL code, the credit is included in the license header.
|
|
While not required, it is also customary to credit the author in "AboutBox".
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> Must I release the source code of used components?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> Only of those covered by MPL, together with any modifications to them.
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> Must I publish my apps under MPL if I used MPL licensed code (the viral aspect) ?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> No. That's the big advantage over GPL - you can use different code, mix MPL
|
|
and commercial code, but you don't have to release either the application,
|
|
nor the non-MPL code under MPL. Basically, what is MPL, will stay MPL,
|
|
but it doesn't have any impact on the non-MPL code.
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> If a bug in MPL licensed code renders my clients machine unbootable, who
|
|
can I hold responsible for that?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> Nobody. You use MPL licensed code at your own risk. Since it is provided
|
|
to you in a source code form, you can inspect it, test it, making sure that
|
|
it does, what you want it to do.
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> Must I publish modifications to MPL licensed code?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> Yes. This is one of the MPL requirements. You are getting a free source
|
|
code, but you have to publish all modifications to the code, unless you
|
|
have done the changes for your internal use.
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> Must I publish code based on MPL licensed code under MPL?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> Yes. You cannot change the license terms. Only the Initial Developer can
|
|
add an additional license (see dual license)
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> If I subclass the MPL code, do I still have to publish the new code? After
|
|
all I didn't modify the code at all!<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> That's a tricky one. By the letter of the law, since you didn't touch the
|
|
original code, you might claim that it is a "new" code, therefore no need
|
|
for MPL. However, by the 'spirit of the law', Inheritance (or subclassing)
|
|
is a modification of the functionality of a given class, and as such a
|
|
"derived work", so even if you didn't touch the original code, you are
|
|
still making changes.
|
|
<LI><B>Q:</B> I am proposing a modification to a JEDI-VCL component, which has a dual
|
|
license (MPL and GPL). This new file also needs to include a new class.
|
|
Should the source files for the new class be put in JEDI-VCL using MPL
|
|
with GPL dual-license or can it be put in another location and use only
|
|
the MPL?<BR>
|
|
<B>A:</B> The license of a file can't be changed without the consent of the copyright
|
|
owner. And a new file derived from an existing file inherits the licensing
|
|
from the existing file. In the case of this component, it has to stay MPL/GPL.
|
|
<LI> I am considering using an XML parser that has being covered by the MPL v1.1
|
|
(or alternatively the GPL) in a commercial product. I will simply use the
|
|
DLL libraries without modification, including the necessary header files
|
|
in my own code. When I distribute (sell) my own product I would, of course,
|
|
need to distribute the DLL libraries as well. My questions are:
|
|
<OL>
|
|
<LI><B>Q1:</B> Am I correct in assuming that simply including unmodified header
|
|
files and linking with a library covered by the MPL does not
|
|
place any legal restrictions or obligations on my commercial
|
|
product and its source code?<BR>
|
|
<B>A1:</B> It places no obligations on the code YOU wrote, but there are
|
|
still obligations for the code you included. These include
|
|
source distribution (for included MPL code, not YOUR code),
|
|
and some notification requirements.
|
|
<LI><B>Q2:</B> Am I obligated to distribute the (unmodified) source code that
|
|
produced the libraries with which I link?<BR>
|
|
<B>A2:</B> Yes. Since you are shipping the DLL libraries with your product,
|
|
you have to make source available for the MPL code you ship.<BR>
|
|
<I>Note that the license also allows you to meet the distribution requirement
|
|
by making the source available via electronic means rather than having to
|
|
physically ship them with your product (as long as you tell your users
|
|
where to get it). If you are using unmodified source code you could probably
|
|
just point at the code author's server. If you did that you'd have to
|
|
specify how users could get the exact version of the source you used,
|
|
such as a CVS date stamp or something.<BR>
|
|
This might be tricky -- you are responsible to make sure the source is
|
|
available for 12 months after you ship, and there's no way of knowing
|
|
how long the author will keep old versions around. The CVS repository
|
|
is more of a sure bet. You could, of course, host the source on your
|
|
own servers to be sure it'll stick around.</I>
|
|
|
|
<LI><B>Q3:</B> Am I obligated to make my use of the particular libraries known
|
|
to users of my product?<BR>
|
|
<B>A3:</B> Yes, it's spelled out in the license. You need to credit the
|
|
source of copyrighted code that is not yours in both the product
|
|
and its documentation.
|
|
</OL>
|
|
</OL>
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
</HTML>
|