4 ms·

The Mozilla Public License version 2.0 is out - and GPL-compatible

40 points by tjr 15y ago

dignan 15y ago
Anybody know when Firefox will use this license?
- gcp 15y ago
  The codebase will be updated soonish, so I'd expect this to be for Firefox 12.
- stasm 15y ago
  The logistics of the update are being discussed in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning/h_DvC6WnFx0 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning..., with the current proposal available at https://wiki.mozilla.org/MPL_Upgrade https://wiki.mozilla.org/MPL_Upgrade. One idea is to update the codebase at the beginning of the cycle that will end up being released as Firefox 13.
- carussell 15y ago
  Right now. Bug 715549[1] tracks the process of updating the boilerplate contained in files across the project from the MPL 1.1 boilerplate to MPL 2.0. But you don't have to wait for that to happen before you can begin using the code[2] under the new license. The MPL is forward-compatible with future versions of the license.[3] (Section 6 says "Netscape", but this is one of the rights the Mozilla Foundation obtained from AOL.) 1. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=715549 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=715549 2. MPL-licensed code, of course 3. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/#section-6 http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/#section-6
calloc 15y ago
Now I can no longer recommend the MPL to people that don't want to license as GPL and don't want their code to suddenly become GPL'ed because someone used it in their project.
- tjr 15y ago
  http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#virality http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#virality The license requires that Modifications (as defined in Section 1.10 of the license) must be licensed under the MPL and made available to anyone to whom you distribute the Source Code. However, new files containing no MPL-licensed code are not Modifications, and therefore do not need to be distributed under the terms of the MPL, even if you create a Larger Work (as defined in Section 1.7) by using, compiling, or distributing the non-MPL files together with MPL-licensed files.
- gcp 15y ago
  http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#mpl-and-lgpl http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#mpl-and-lgpl This seems to say that you can block that possibility: "Software can become “Incompatible With Secondary Licenses” ...the original author marks it as such by adding the file header in Exhibit B"
- wnoise 15y ago
  Their code doesn't suddenly become GPLed. A copy or derivative of their code becomes GPLed. Their original code maintains it own original status. Yeah, if you want to avoid any copy of your code becoming GPLed, avoid GPL compatible licenses. But if you're releasing your code under a free license, I'm not sure why you would specifically not want GPLed copies floating around too.
- keithwinstein 15y ago
  For what it's worth, the MIT, X11, Apache 2, and (modified) BSD licenses all have the same feature of GPL compatibility, as does CC0 or any public domain dedication. (MPL 2 is a little different in that the licensor can opt-out of GPL compatibility.) More here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Generally speaking, if the software is free and not subject to copyleft or a choice-of-law provision, there is probably nothing to stop users from redistributing it under the GPL.
- kibwen 15y ago
  Other commenters have noted that this statement is incorrect, but also note that the release of MPL 2.0 does not (and cannot) invalidate the continued use of MPL 1.1, even for new projects.
DEinspanjer 15y ago
It is also BSD and APL compatable according to http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#mpl-bsd-and-apache http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#mpl-bsd-and-apache which I believe will make it much easier for my team when contributing and interacting with Apache projects such as Hadoop.

40 points by tjr 15y ago

dignan 15y ago

Anybody know when Firefox will use this license?

gcp 15y ago
The codebase will be updated soonish, so I'd expect this to be for Firefox 12.
stasm 15y ago
The logistics of the update are being discussed in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning/h_DvC6WnFx0 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning..., with the current proposal available at https://wiki.mozilla.org/MPL_Upgrade https://wiki.mozilla.org/MPL_Upgrade. One idea is to update the codebase at the beginning of the cycle that will end up being released as Firefox 13.
carussell 15y ago
Right now. Bug 715549[1] tracks the process of updating the boilerplate contained in files across the project from the MPL 1.1 boilerplate to MPL 2.0. But you don't have to wait for that to happen before you can begin using the code[2] under the new license. The MPL is forward-compatible with future versions of the license.[3] (Section 6 says "Netscape", but this is one of the rights the Mozilla Foundation obtained from AOL.) 1. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=715549 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=715549 2. MPL-licensed code, of course 3. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/#section-6 http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/#section-6

calloc 15y ago

Now I can no longer recommend the MPL to people that don't want to license as GPL and don't want their code to suddenly become GPL'ed because someone used it in their project.

tjr 15y ago
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#virality http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#virality The license requires that Modifications (as defined in Section 1.10 of the license) must be licensed under the MPL and made available to anyone to whom you distribute the Source Code. However, new files containing no MPL-licensed code are not Modifications, and therefore do not need to be distributed under the terms of the MPL, even if you create a Larger Work (as defined in Section 1.7) by using, compiling, or distributing the non-MPL files together with MPL-licensed files.
gcp 15y ago
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#mpl-and-lgpl http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#mpl-and-lgpl This seems to say that you can block that possibility: "Software can become “Incompatible With Secondary Licenses” ...the original author marks it as such by adding the file header in Exhibit B"
wnoise 15y ago
Their code doesn't suddenly become GPLed. A copy or derivative of their code becomes GPLed. Their original code maintains it own original status. Yeah, if you want to avoid any copy of your code becoming GPLed, avoid GPL compatible licenses. But if you're releasing your code under a free license, I'm not sure why you would specifically not want GPLed copies floating around too.
keithwinstein 15y ago
For what it's worth, the MIT, X11, Apache 2, and (modified) BSD licenses all have the same feature of GPL compatibility, as does CC0 or any public domain dedication. (MPL 2 is a little different in that the licensor can opt-out of GPL compatibility.) More here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Generally speaking, if the software is free and not subject to copyleft or a choice-of-law provision, there is probably nothing to stop users from redistributing it under the GPL.
kibwen 15y ago
Other commenters have noted that this statement is incorrect, but also note that the release of MPL 2.0 does not (and cannot) invalidate the continued use of MPL 1.1, even for new projects.

DEinspanjer 15y ago

It is also BSD and APL compatable according to http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#mpl-bsd-and-apache http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#mpl-bsd-and-apache which I believe will make it much easier for my team when contributing and interacting with Apache projects such as Hadoop.