Yahoo Web Search

Search results

  1. The release of MPL 2.0 was the result of a two year process that revised MPL 1.1. A Revision FAQ. documents this process, and explains the most significant changes made. Historical Documents. Various historical documents relating to the Mozilla and Netscape Public Licenses are available, including deprecated versions of the license such as MPL ...

  2. The Mozilla Public License (MPL) is a free and open-source weak copyleft license for most Mozilla Foundation software such as Firefox and Thunderbird. The MPL license is developed and maintained by Mozilla, which seeks to balance the concerns of both open-source and proprietary developers; it is distinguished from others as a middle ground between the permissive software BSD-style licenses and ...

    • 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 Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1) In January, 1998, Netscape Communications decided to release the binary code of its Communicator web-brower for free. Less than 24 hours later, it … - Selection from Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing [Book]

  4. the licenses granted in this Section 2.1 and are effective on the date Initial Developer first distributes Original Code under the terms of this License. Notwithstanding Section 2.1 above, no patent license is granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2) separate from the Original Code; or 3) for infringements caused by: i ...

  5. Mar 6, 2012 · On 3rd January 2012, version 2 of the Mozilla Public License (MPL) was approved by the Open Source Initiative. It is also considered to be a Free Software licence by the Free Software Foundation. Like its predecessor, the Mozilla Public License v 1.1, it seeks to impose a moderate level of ‘copyleft’ restriction on adaptations of code that ...

  6. 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