4 ms·

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

by 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.
azakai 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. BSD, MIT and other permissive licenses also have this "problem" that they can be used as GPL.

by 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.

azakai 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. BSD, MIT and other permissive licenses also have this "problem" that they can be used as GPL.