3 ms·

I like the MPL 2.0 and use it for some of my own software as it best seems to describe the outcome that I want (incorporate it into whatever you want, but pleas

by jabl 3y ago

I like the MPL 2.0 and use it for some of my own software as it best seems to describe the outcome that I want (incorporate it into whatever you want, but please contribute improvements to the MPL licensed parts of the software back to upstream). However, I also think it's fairly easy to circumvent for a hypothetical leech that just wants to use my code without contributing back any improvements. Namely just put the improvements into a separate proprietary file, and insert stubs in the MPL licensed file calling the proprietary code. Taking this argument to the extreme, one should use either something extremely permissive like 0BSD or then go full AGPLv3, as everything inbetween is to an extent possible to circumvent without too much trouble (GPL "condoms" and all that).

logicprog 3y ago
> However, I also think it's fairly easy to circumvent for a hypothetical leech that just wants to use my code without contributing back any improvements. Namely just put the improvements into a separate proprietary file, and insert stubs in the MPL licensed file calling the proprietary code. Yeah this is the work around that came to mind when I first read the MPL, and it's what I had in mind when I said it isn't perfect. I'm using it for a current game engine project I'm working on, and will probably use it for any of my other work moving forward, but I definitely think it isn't the end of license history — there is still a lot more improvement that could be made. I was just giving it as an example of what I think the correct direction is, in contrast to the current extremes. I think it's where more work on licenses should go.
mook 3y ago
I like MPL too (depending on context), but do be aware that (per section 10) Mozilla is allowed to ship new versions of the license and people can choose to use those new versions in place of the version you licensed under. This is not inherently bad — many projects are licensed under "GPL 3 or later", for example — but it's something to be aware of. See also CDDL, which is mostly MPL but Sun (and now Oracle) in place of Mozilla Foundation.
- logicprog 3y ago
  Oh I didnt know that, good to know. Another area where it isn't perfect!

by jabl 3y ago

logicprog 3y ago

> However, I also think it's fairly easy to circumvent for a hypothetical leech that just wants to use my code without contributing back any improvements. Namely just put the improvements into a separate proprietary file, and insert stubs in the MPL licensed file calling the proprietary code. Yeah this is the work around that came to mind when I first read the MPL, and it's what I had in mind when I said it isn't perfect. I'm using it for a current game engine project I'm working on, and will probably use it for any of my other work moving forward, but I definitely think it isn't the end of license history — there is still a lot more improvement that could be made. I was just giving it as an example of what I think the correct direction is, in contrast to the current extremes. I think it's where more work on licenses should go.

mook 3y ago

I like MPL too (depending on context), but do be aware that (per section 10) Mozilla is allowed to ship new versions of the license and people can choose to use those new versions in place of the version you licensed under. This is not inherently bad — many projects are licensed under "GPL 3 or later", for example — but it's something to be aware of. See also CDDL, which is mostly MPL but Sun (and now Oracle) in place of Mozilla Foundation.

logicprog 3y ago
Oh I didnt know that, good to know. Another area where it isn't perfect!