Frank Hecker wrote:
>
> Vikram wrote:
> > I read some messages at
> >
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&group=netscape.public.mozilla.license
> > Conclusion is
You really should base your conclusions on reading the license, not what
people have said about the license. In big terms your conclusions sound ok
but there's a fair chance you've gotten some details wrong.
> > 2) I need to provide code which modifies behaviour of mozilla. So if
> > I modify some mozilla component say 'html parser' then I need to give
> > it's source code.
>
> Yes, if you make modifications to the Mozilla source files then you need
> to provide source code for those modifications, at least to people to
> whom you distribute your products.
The Mozilla source you used needs to be made available whether you make
Modifications or not! If you've used untouched Mozilla source you could
probably rely on mozilla.org to maintain the distribution of the source, but
you'll have to let your customers know which version of Mozilla source
you've used and how they can get it.
If you've made only small modifications to Mozilla code you may find it
simpler to distribute them in patch form (allowed under the definition
1.11).
> > 3) If mozilla is not fully functional without my program then I have
> > to provide source code for my program too.
>
> This criterion is not really part of the Mozilla licensing scheme.
That sounds more like the LGPL, (though not exactly). The LGPL is concerned
that people have the freedom to improve programs they rely on, even if, for
example, the vendor goes out of business or refuses to fix the defect. The
MPL simply wants to make sure that the Mozilla community can use the
bugfixes and improvements made by those who have benefitted from the Mozilla
community's source.
-Dan Veditz
