下面是一些关于MPL的FAQ，涉及到JVCL的地方换成TuborPower就基本是你要满足的条件了。 User perspective Q: Can I use the MPL code in commercial software? If yes, am I obligated to credit the author? A: Yes, you can use the MPL code in any commercial software. Since you have to include the MPL code, the credit is included in the license header. While not required, it is also customary to credit the author in "AboutBox".Q: Must I release the source code of used components? A: Only of those covered by MPL, together with any modifications to them.Q: Must I publish my apps under MPL if I used MPL licensed code (the viral aspect) ? A: No. That's the big advantage over GPL - you can use different code, mix MPL and commercial code, but you don't have to release either the application, nor the non-MPL code under MPL. Basically, what is MPL, will stay MPL, but it doesn't have any impact on the non-MPL code.Q: If a bug in MPL licensed code renders my clients machine unbootable, who can I hold responsible for that? A: Nobody. You use MPL licensed code at your own risk. Since it is provided to you in a source code form, you can inspect it, test it, making sure that it does, what you want it to do.Q: Must I publish modifications to MPL licensed code? A: Yes. This is one of the MPL requirements. You are getting a free source code, but you have to publish all modifications to the code, unless you have done the changes for your internal use.Q: Must I publish code based on MPL licensed code under MPL? A: Yes. You cannot change the license terms. Only the Initial Developer can add an additional license (see dual license)Q: If I subclass the MPL code, do I still have to publish the new code? After all I didn't modify the code at all! A: That's a tricky one. By the letter of the law, since you didn't touch the original code, you might claim that it is a "new" code, therefore no need for MPL. However, by the 'spirit of the law', Inheritance (or subclassing) is a modification of the functionality of a given class, and as such a "derived work", so even if you didn't touch the original code, you are still making changes.Q: I am proposing a modification to a JEDI-VCL component, which has a dual license (MPL and GPL). This new file also needs to include a new class. Should the source files for the new class be put in JEDI-VCL using MPL with GPL dual-license or can it be put in another location and use only the MPL? A: The license of a file can't be changed without the consent of the copyright owner. And a new file derived from an existing file inherits the licensing from the existing file. In the case of this component, it has to stay MPL/GPL.I am considering using an XML parser that has being covered by the MPL v1.1 (or alternatively the GPL) in a commercial product. I will simply use the DLL libraries without modification, including the necessary header files in my own code. When I distribute (sell) my own product I would, of course, need to distribute the DLL libraries as well. My questions are: Q1: Am I correct in assuming that simply including unmodified header files and linking with a library covered by the MPL does not place any legal restrictions or obligations on my commercial product and its source code? A1: It places no obligations on the code YOU wrote, but there are still obligations for the code you included. These include source distribution (for included MPL code, not YOUR code), and some notification requirements.Q2: Am I obligated to distribute the (unmodified) source code that produced the libraries with which I link? A2: No, you don't have to "physically" distribute the source code, but you have to give credit to the authors and provide a link to location where the users can download the source code (see next question) Q3: Am I obligated to make my use of the particular libraries known to users of my product? A3: Absouletly, it's spelled out in the license. You need to credit the source of copyrighted code that is not yours in both the product and its documentation. Q: We are using JCL v1.32 and JVCL v1.32 in our products. We did not modify the source codes in any way. Can some one please tell me if we need to add a Copyright statement in our product's license text and if so, which text is required? This is normally done in "AboutBox" and the documentation. To make it simple, if you use JVCL you can add statement like:"This program contains JVCL source code that can be obtained from http://jvcl.sourceforge.net" or "JVCL portions are licensed from Project JEDI, and the source code can be obtained from http://jvcl.sourceforge.net" If you look at Microsoft Office programs, you can see bunch of similar legal statements in their "About Box".By including such statement in the AboutBox AND your documentation, you have fulfilled the requirement to:a) provide credit to the author b) provide the user with the location where they can download JVCL source code
以下是我的理解，不是直译 1。你可以用于商业目的，但你应该在ABOUT里面给作者扬扬名（不是必须，但这样做才算有良心） 2。只有那些在MPL控制下的源代码才必须发布，但如果你有修改，应该一起发表（比如你继承了某个类，写了个新类） 3。你的程序不必置于MPL控制下 4。MPL控制的开放代码出了BUG由你自己负责，你选择，你担风险 5。6。7。跟3差不多 8不用说，关于双license的 9假使你用了一个MPL控制的DLL/HEADER，FILE，什么都没改： 9.1你还是要将相关代码发布（不是你写的），还要有必要的提示。 9.2其实你只不过被要求提供这些代码在什么地方获得 9.3但你必须说明哪些文件是你MPL的 10。你如果什么都不修改的用（继承也是修改），一般只要在ABOUT里象下面做就行了： "This program contains JVCL source code that can be obtained from http://jvcl.sourceforge.net" or "JVCL portions are licensed from Project JEDI, and the source code can be obtained from http://jvcl.sourceforge.net" 对 TuborPower来说只是换下名字和网址。
User perspective
Q: Can I use the MPL code in commercial software? If yes, am I obligated to credit the author?
A: Yes, you can use the MPL code in any commercial software. Since you have to include the MPL code, the credit is included in the license header. While not required, it is also customary to credit the author in "AboutBox".Q: Must I release the source code of used components?
A: Only of those covered by MPL, together with any modifications to them.Q: Must I publish my apps under MPL if I used MPL licensed code (the viral aspect) ?
A: No. That's the big advantage over GPL - you can use different code, mix MPL and commercial code, but you don't have to release either the application, nor the non-MPL code under MPL. Basically, what is MPL, will stay MPL, but it doesn't have any impact on the non-MPL code.Q: If a bug in MPL licensed code renders my clients machine unbootable, who can I hold responsible for that?
A: Nobody. You use MPL licensed code at your own risk. Since it is provided to you in a source code form, you can inspect it, test it, making sure that it does, what you want it to do.Q: Must I publish modifications to MPL licensed code?
A: Yes. This is one of the MPL requirements. You are getting a free source code, but you have to publish all modifications to the code, unless you have done the changes for your internal use.Q: Must I publish code based on MPL licensed code under MPL?
A: Yes. You cannot change the license terms. Only the Initial Developer can add an additional license (see dual license)Q: If I subclass the MPL code, do I still have to publish the new code? After all I didn't modify the code at all!
A: That's a tricky one. By the letter of the law, since you didn't touch the original code, you might claim that it is a "new" code, therefore no need for MPL. However, by the 'spirit of the law', Inheritance (or subclassing) is a modification of the functionality of a given class, and as such a "derived work", so even if you didn't touch the original code, you are still making changes.Q: I am proposing a modification to a JEDI-VCL component, which has a dual license (MPL and GPL). This new file also needs to include a new class. Should the source files for the new class be put in JEDI-VCL using MPL with GPL dual-license or can it be put in another location and use only the MPL?
A: The license of a file can't be changed without the consent of the copyright owner. And a new file derived from an existing file inherits the licensing from the existing file. In the case of this component, it has to stay MPL/GPL.I am considering using an XML parser that has being covered by the MPL v1.1 (or alternatively the GPL) in a commercial product. I will simply use the DLL libraries without modification, including the necessary header files in my own code. When I distribute (sell) my own product I would, of course, need to distribute the DLL libraries as well. My questions are:
Q1: Am I correct in assuming that simply including unmodified header files and linking with a library covered by the MPL does not place any legal restrictions or obligations on my commercial product and its source code?
A1: It places no obligations on the code YOU wrote, but there are still obligations for the code you included. These include source distribution (for included MPL code, not YOUR code), and some notification requirements.Q2: Am I obligated to distribute the (unmodified) source code that produced the libraries with which I link?
A2: No, you don't have to "physically" distribute the source code, but you have to give credit to the authors and provide a link to location where the users can download the source code (see next question) Q3: Am I obligated to make my use of the particular libraries known to users of my product?
A3: Absouletly, it's spelled out in the license. You need to credit the source of copyrighted code that is not yours in both the product and its documentation.
Q: We are using JCL v1.32 and JVCL v1.32 in our products. We did not modify the source codes in any way. Can some one please tell me if we need to add a Copyright statement in our product's license text and if so, which text is required? This is normally done in "AboutBox" and the documentation. To make it simple, if you use JVCL you can add statement like:"This program contains JVCL source code that can be obtained from http://jvcl.sourceforge.net" or
"JVCL portions are licensed from Project JEDI, and the source code can be obtained from http://jvcl.sourceforge.net" If you look at Microsoft Office programs, you can see bunch of similar legal statements in their "About Box".By including such statement in the AboutBox AND your documentation, you have fulfilled the requirement to:a) provide credit to the author
b) provide the user with the location where they can download JVCL source code
1。你可以用于商业目的，但你应该在ABOUT里面给作者扬扬名（不是必须，但这样做才算有良心）
2。只有那些在MPL控制下的源代码才必须发布，但如果你有修改，应该一起发表（比如你继承了某个类，写了个新类）
3。你的程序不必置于MPL控制下
4。MPL控制的开放代码出了BUG由你自己负责，你选择，你担风险
5。6。7。跟3差不多
8不用说，关于双license的
9假使你用了一个MPL控制的DLL/HEADER，FILE，什么都没改：
9.1你还是要将相关代码发布（不是你写的），还要有必要的提示。
9.2其实你只不过被要求提供这些代码在什么地方获得
9.3但你必须说明哪些文件是你MPL的
10。你如果什么都不修改的用（继承也是修改），一般只要在ABOUT里象下面做就行了：
"This program contains JVCL source code that can be obtained from http://jvcl.sourceforge.net" or
"JVCL portions are licensed from Project JEDI, and the source code can be obtained from http://jvcl.sourceforge.net"
对 TuborPower来说只是换下名字和网址。