licensing issue

[tatamata]

I made a program that I want to opensource and make available to public.
It relies on a library that has MPL 1.1. license.
I want to:
-enable public contributed development of the software
-enable anyone (including me) to produce a derrivative commercial product on the base of the contributed code, without any restriction (such as obligation to publish such commercial code (diffs)).

So, my question: which licence to use: MPL 1.1., MPL 1.1. with alternative GNU LGPL, LGPL statement? LGPL?
On GNU site I have found a statement that GPL is not compatible with MPL, is this true for LGPL too? Does it mean that my software can not be published as LGPL?

Would it be better not to use any licence, so that anybody can do what ever he wishes with the code?

What is the license of Lazarus/FPC, by the way?

[JimBeam]

I made a program that I want to opensource and make available to public.
It relies on a library that has MPL 1.1. license.

Would it be better not to use any licence, so that anybody can do what ever he wishes with the code?

I'd suggest seeing if a (new) BSD or MIT license works with the MPL: these licenses are very liberal but protect the copyright holder/author from liability.

What is the license of Lazarus/FPC, by the way?

Start Lazarus, Help, About