Search results
- New projects which are Mozilla Code may choose either the MPL 2.0 or the Apache License 2.0. No other license is acceptable, because Mozilla is committed to using modern open source licenses with patent grant clauses. The licensing team recommends MPL 2.0 for client-side code; please consult the team before going against this recommendation.
www.mozilla.org › en-US › MPL
People also ask
What is MPL 2.0 & why should I use it?
What happened to MPL 2.0?
Can I use a later version of MPL?
Should I move my project to MPL 2.0?
In principle, this is incompatible with the MPL license, but the MPL-2.0 license has a special exception for allowing the code to be distributed under the terms of the GPL licenses. However, an author can also choose to explicitly disable that exception.
- 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.
Why should I upgrade to MPL 2.0? If your project is licensed under MPL 1.1, there are several important reasons why you should move your project to MPL 2.0: MPL 2.0 makes compliance simpler, both for you and for people who receive code from you.
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 .
The MPL 2.0 is neither a permissive license like the MIT License (which allows for use of the licensed code with very few restrictions) nor a strong copyleft license like the GPL v2 License (which places numerous restrictions on use). Often termed a “weak copyleft” license, MPL 2.0 falls somewhere in the middle.
MPL source code files can be directly copied into a (possibly) proprietary software project ( static linking ), while LGPL licensed code must be dynamically linked (loosely linked to the possibly proprietary software project, so that end-users can switch out the licensed software library for another version of the licensed software library).
