I said

> > 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.
> >

Marc Spitzer said:

>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.

I guess I shouldn't have been so mealy-mouthed. I should have said "require"
where I said "encourage."

I'm not a lawyer either - nor have any of these licenses been tested in
court - but my understanding of the Mozilla license is that it will
allow you to include source code in a proprietary product and will not
require you to adopt the Mozilla licence for the modules you write.
You will be required to disclose the changes you made to the source
modules. All it takes is good interfaces.

Ann