4

I look at a project under MPL 1.1. Can I take the source and re-distribute it under MPL 2.0 without any modification or contribution? That is, I am not a contributor (not the initial, not in the past, not in the future).

Some other licenses (Apache) seem to state clearly the unmodified parts (in this context: all parts) retain their original license. For MPL 1.1 -> 2.0 (or any other license), I miss such a statement. Is there a difference between a version upgrade (1.1 -> 2.0) and a license change (MPL 1.1 -> Apache).

2

2 Answers 2

4

In principle, different versions of license X are different licenses. This means that a "version upgrade" of a license should in principle be treated as a license change.

However, some licenses explicitly contain provisions for version upgrades. In that case, a version upgrade of the license can be applied at any time by anyone who legally obtained a copy of the code.
The MPL license contains such an version upgrade clause, but the Apache license does not.

1

If a project is licensed under the MPL-1.1-or-later (which it implicitly is, unless otherwise stated), you can redistribute it under the MPL-2.0. For this, replace the LICENSE file and the licence headers.

If a project explicitly states that the licence is MPL-1.1-only, you are still allowed to do this. For this, apart from updating the headers, add the following notice:

This Source Code Form is “Incompatible With Secondary Licenses”, as defined by the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0.

Sources:

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.