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
