Yahoo Web Search

Search results

      • MPL 2.0 makes compliance simpler, both for you and for people who receive code from you. MPL 2.0 provides patent protections for you and your contributors more in line with those of other open source licenses, and allows your entire community to protect any contributor if the contributor is sued.
  1. People also ask

  2. Mozilla is the custodian of the Mozilla Public License ("MPL"), an open source/free software license. The current version of the license is MPL 2.0 (html | plain text). If you want to use or distribute code licensed under the MPL 2.0 and have questions about it, you may want to read the FAQ. MPL 2.0 Revision Process. The release of MPL 2.0 was ...

    • Q16: Is "minified" Javascript Source Code?
    • Q17: What Does "Distribute" Mean?
    • Q18: Should MPL Be Used For Non-Software Works?
    • Does The MPL 2.0 Give Me Permission to Make My Own License by Changing The MPL?
    • What Does "Used" Mean in The Definition of Contributor Version (Sec. 1.2)?

    No. MinifiedJavaScript, while not an "executable" in the software engineering sense of the word, is difficult for humans to read, edit, and modify. As such, it is not "the preferred form for modification" and so it is not Source Code as defined by the license. Therefore, minified JavaScript is the Executable form, and the responsibilities set out i...

    The MPL uses "distribute" in the sense of delivery of a copy of the software to another person or entity. We do not use distribute to mean "make available" in the sense of "making functionality available over the web without delivery of a copy of the software." So e.g. in a web-based application, the code which runs on the server is not 'distribute...

    MPL was written with software in mind, and should generally only be used for software. However, for consistency and simplicity, it may be appropriate to use the MPL for non-software works (such as documentation, images, and sound files) that are written primarily for use in MPL-licensed software.

    Yes but, as with MPL 1.1, we strongly discourage you from doing so. It will almost certainly make your software much less popular and less widely used. Software developers and companies are already aware of and understand popular licenses like the MPL. If you create your own, they will have to perform a legal assessment of your changes - and may co...

    “Used” in Section 1.2 means an action taken in the process of creating a Contribution or Modification.

  3. The MPL license is a copyleft license, which means that in principle people are not allowed to distribute code that is under the MPL-2.0 license under different terms. The GPL licenses (including LGPL and AGPL) require that the entire application is distributed under the terms of the GPL license.

  4. Mozilla Public License; Author: Mozilla Foundation: Latest version: 2.0: Publisher: Mozilla Foundation: Published: January 3, 2012: SPDX identifier: MPL-2.0 MPL-1.1 MPL-1.0 (see list for more) Debian FSG compatible: Yes: FSF approved: Yes: OSI approved: Yes: GPL compatible: 2.0 and later: Yes (by default, unless marked as "Incompatible With ...

  5. Mozilla Public License 2.0 contains an express patent license, but also some terms to clarify the scope of the license. It contains a disclaimer of implied licenses and also a strong defensive termination provision.

  6. Full Text. MPL is a copyleft license that is easy to comply with. You must make the source code for any of your changes available under MPL, but you can combine the MPL software with proprietary code, as long as you keep the MPL code in separate files. Version 2.0 is, by default, compatible with LGPL and GPL version 2 or greater.

  7. Mozilla Public License 2.0: Redline from MPL 1.1. Text that is red and struck through has been removed in MPL 2.0. Text that is blue and underlined has been added in MPL 2.0. Mouse over the highlighted text to get a further explanation of that change in the license. Note that these explanations are not the license.

  1. People also search for