3

It seems like the issue they ran into that triggered this is that Apache 2.0 was considered incompatible with GPLv2 which was hindering adoption, based on this github issue: https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054

I suppose to some extent this is a complex way of asking if MPL-2.0 is compatible with GPLv2, however, it could be that it's compatible (not sure) but also would be the wrong choice in that concrete example for other reasons.

1 Answer 1

3

It's not a complex way of asking whether MPLv2 is compatible with GPLv2, it's an up-front-and-simple way of asking that! Yes, MPLv2 is compatible with GPLv2, therefore yes, re-licensing bootstrap from Apache2 to MPLv2 would have addressed the issue of distributing works which are derivatives both of bootstrap and of GPLv2-licensed code. It wouldn't have addressed it so neatly as re-licensing to MIT, because some calisthenics are required to combine MPLv2 and GPLv2 code (see the FSF FAQ), but it would have been equally effective.

I would hazard a guess that the bootstrap people are pretty permissive folks, who originally picked a licence which, whilst excellent, isn't entirely permissive. When that ran into problems, they decided to go fully-permissive, hence the choice of MIT over (eg) MPLv2. But that's just speculation on my part.

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.