Yes, under MPL 1.1 license. I don't see why can't you distribute commercial projects, as long as you provide full credits and mention location to original Asphyre framework. You need to provide source code only for any derivative works. It seems that MPL 2.0 is more enforced in this terms, but you can choose whether to stick with MPL 1.1 or with MPL 2.0.
MPL is an open-source license. Asphyre framework, its tools and all related content are copyright protected. It is not, however, available for public domain, as it does have intellectual property rights, which must be not be violated.
In any case, it is not unreasonable, assuming that you get a free and polished product, which you can use to create commercial projects, and the only thing you need to give in return is to provide credits for the framework and its author(s).
In my understanding, MIT license only protects itself but not the actual author: MIT license and its statement propagates easily, while author rights are eventually dissolved. I think it is most applicable to software that is intended to be illegal or violate some laws, so it is easily distributed yet remain more or less anonymous. One such example would be a P2P content sharing tool. I wouldn't recommend it for nxPascal project.
You can, provided that MPL license is complied with.
By the way, I have checked your project and it seems promising. Sorry for not checking it earlier, but I've been in a hurry and thought that "nxPascal" was like a new compiler or something. Indeed, there are many parts where you could reuse a lot of Asphyre: vector math, types, functions, GUI, not to mention the fact that you use same DGL OpenGL headers. Any reason why can't you build nxPascal on top of Asphyre, or as an extension of thereof, such as a combined project or something? (Especially now when it is on SVN.) Asphyre solves a lot of low-level tedious problems, while you could focus on actual high-level 3D stuff.
Bookmarks