The Mozilla Public License version 2.0 is out - and GPL-compatible | Hacker News Reader

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

fsf.org

40 pointstjr12 comments

It is also BSD and APL compatable according to 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.

Anybody know when Firefox will use this license?

The logistics of the update are being discussed in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning..., with the current proposal available at 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.

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

2. MPL-licensed code, of course

3. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/#section-6

The codebase will be updated soonish, so I'd expect this to be for Firefox 12.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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"

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com