Search results
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.
- Version 2.0
1.12. “Secondary License” means either the GNU General...
- MPL 1.1
the licenses granted in this Section 2.1 and are effective...
- Mozilla Licensing Policies
Mozilla Monitor. See if your email has appeared in a...
- Appropriate Header Text
Mozilla License Headers This page gives copy-and-pasteable...
- Historical Documents
Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 This is the Mozilla...
- Version 2.0
- 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.
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.
People also ask
When did the Mozilla Public License come out?
What is the difference between MPL & Mozilla Public License?
Does the Mozilla Foundation have an open source license?
How do I use the Mozilla Public License?
Users of MPL 2.0-licensed code may: Use the code in commercial applications. MPL’d code can be included in software that’s sold commercially. Change the code. Authors can alter or modify the licensed code. Distribute the code. An individual or company can make their reworked version (s) of the code available to others. Use patent claims.
So I basically have a choice between the MPLv2.0 or going with a permissive license. Some details on the license: https://opensource.org/licenses/MPL-2.0 https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ I've done some reading and here is my perceptions:
MPL is a practical license designed by Mozilla to enforce some kind of share-alike to the original library, while still encouraging people to make proprietary softwares and add-ons on top (including Mozilla itself), which is a practice that the FSF authorizes via LGPL but still considers harmful.
