2

I'm developing a new project, which uses the following licenses:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│                                  Package Name  License
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│                           _fe_analyzer_shared  BSD-3-Clause
│                        _flutterfire_internals  BSD-3-Clause
│                                      analyzer  BSD-3-Clause
│                                     app_links  Apache-2.0
│                                       archive  MIT
│                                          args  BSD-3-Clause
│                                         async  BSD-3-Clause
│                              boolean_selector  BSD-3-Clause
│                                    characters  BSD-3-Clause
│                                  checked_yaml  BSD-3-Clause
│                                      cli_util  BSD-3-Clause
│                                         clock  Apache-2.0
│                                    collection  BSD-3-Clause
│                                       convert  BSD-3-Clause
│                                      coverage  BSD-3-Clause
│                                        crypto  BSD-3-Clause
│                               cupertino_icons  MIT
│                                   dart_dotenv  AGPL-3.0
│                                          dbus  MPL-2.0
│                              device_info_plus  BSD-3-Clause
│           device_info_plus_platform_interface  BSD-3-Clause
│                               email_validator  MIT
│                                     equatable  MIT
│                                     event_bus  MIT
│                                    fake_async  Apache-2.0

According to this source I couldn't mix MPL-2.0 along with AGPL-3.0, MIT and others. Is it correct?

Plus, I would like to keep it open by using the MIT license, but I'm not that sure I can with this kind of licences to be compliant with.

1 Answer 1

2

According to the FSF's compatibility list, MPL2 is (indirectly) compatible with AGPLv3 provided the MPL-licensed content is not marked "Incompatible with Secondary Licences". If that's so, you may release your project.

I would like to keep it open by using the MIT license, but I'm not that sure I can with this kind of licences to be compliant with.

You are right to be unsure, since you may not do this. The entire project must be released under AGPLv3, save that the originally-MPL content should be marked as "also available under MPL2" (see the FSF's list for further details).

That said, the Wikipedia page on dbus suggests it's under GPLv2+, in which case you should instead release your project as a mix of GPLv3 and AGPLv3 code (see the compatibility list entry on AGPL for further details).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.