I can see how the current Mozilla license allows this, but it could
be specifically disallowed by the addition of a subsection 'C' to the
definition of a 'Modification' in section 1.9:
It's certainly possible to change the MPL (or any license) to be a
real copyleft. (Netscape wrote it this way because they didn't want a
real copyleft.)
The resulting modified license would raise all the same issues as the
GPL, about when linking is permitted. Any license that closes the
loophole of putting the proprietary code in a subroutine in a separate
file is probably going to encounter the same issues.
I personally believe that it is in the best interests of the Open
Source community that commercial developers are *able* to use Open
Source's in commercial products,
Would it be in our best interest to have no C++ compiler? I don't
like C++, but I think it is veryimportant that we have one. We would
not have it if I had followed your recommendations when I released
GCC. For this and other reasons why copyleft is good for free
software, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html and
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html.
For the reasons why the term "free software" is better than "open
source", see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html