Q25: What happens if someone doesn't use the per-file boilerplate, and just ships a copy of the full MPL 2 with their code?
The code is licensed under the plain MPL 2. It is not considered Incompatible with Secondary Licenses. Making code Incompatible with Secondary Licenses requires an active choice on the part of the licensor; it is not the default. The notice in Exhibit B is not considered "attached" merely by being present as the Exhibit B of a copy of the full MPL 2.
The only exception is if the code used to be straight MPL 1.1 and was upgraded to MPL 2, in which case it would be Incompatible with Secondary Licenses (Sec. 1.5 b).
Now, imagine a repository consisting of just 3 files:
src/ mylibrary.h logo.png LICENSE
LICENSE file contains the text of MPL 2.0 verbatim. Further, assume that neither
src/mylibrary.h have any copyright/license notices: the former by virtue of being a binary file, the latter out of laziness. What is the license of this repository?
Looking at Q25 quoted above, the description "someone doesn't use the per-file boilerplate, and just ships a copy of the full MPL 2 with their code" applies here exactly; and the answer says that in this case "The code is licensed under plain MPL 2".
However, if I look at the text of the license itself, I reach a different conclusion. The clause 1.4 defines what "covered software" is: Source Code Form to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A, the Executable Form of such Source Code Form, and Modifications of such Source Code Form, in each case including portions thereof. So it appears that only the files that have a notice from Exhibit A "attached" are covered by the license.
The license does not define the word "attached", but there is a note after Exhibit A that offers a clue:
If it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice.
So, based on this wording, it appears that there are 2 ways to make a file into a "covered software": either put the text of the notice from Exhibit A into the file (presumably as a comment), or have a side-along LICENSE file in the same directory that contains the notice from Exhibit A.
It seems to me that neither of these requirements are satisfied in the example repository shown above. Even Q25 acknowledges that "the notice in Exhibit B is not considered 'attached' merely by being present as the Exhibit B of a copy of the full MPL 2", and I don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply to Exhibit A as well.
So, the big question is: Is Q25 mistaken, and it is not sufficient to merely include into a repository a full copy of MPL-2?