Mozilla doesn't prevent you from using the source code, writing a
modification and shipping a compiled product using that modification
without opening your source mods.

It does, however, protect the mainstream development process (preceding
work, continuing work) from indiscriminate forking and free-loading, by
requiring you to open the source containing the changes if you deploy the
source in any form and by preventing you from charging a fee for
distributing the source. So, for example, if you modify (or deploy
unchanged) MPL source for a suite of Delphi-IB connectivity components or a
driver, you are not entitled to charge more for distributing your product
with the source code than without it. That is to say, you are prevented
from making a profit by selling source code you didn't originally create
yourself.

The optionality of this in BSD continues to create a free-loader problem
that you'll note from previous discussions was considered undesirable by
open-source moderates and the epitome of exploitative evil by the extreme
wings.

Helen

At 07:21 PM 16-03-00 -0500, you wrote:

>From: Marc Spitzer <marc@...>
>
>sure it does, open bsd got realtime extensions donated back to the project
>from RTMX.com. I could find other examples if I wanted to also. The
>advantage of the BSD licence is that if I invest a lot of time and effort
>into something I can recover my investment. After I can donate it to the
>project if I choose. And it is self limiting because if I do something
>truely useful there is nothing stopping someone else doing it and releasing
>it also.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ann Harrison <harrison@...>
> >
> > The drawback of a BSD-style license is that it doesn't encourage
> > a collaborative effort. Mozilla requires that changes be published
> > and shared. BSD does not.
> >

___________________________________________________
"Ask not what your free, open-source database can do for you,
but what you can do for your free, open-source database."
(J.F.K.)