Hot answers tagged

36

Software is free (as defined by the FSF) if it gives you the four freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so ...


19

TL;DR: The legal incompatibilities between the GPL and the App store TOS don't apply to the MPL, but there is no saying whether Apple will allow your MPL licensed app. First off, what Apple allows and doesn't allow in their app store is entirely up to Apple. As far as I know, they reserve the right to refuse any app for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, it ...


12

It certainly sucks when people take your work and use it in ways against your permission, like copying your copyleft work without also sharing their changes. Fortunately you don't have to go straight to the lawyers, as there are a number of things you can do, and also some things to check, to be safe. Is it worth it? Copyright infringement for software is ...


7

I agree with the conclusion in your linked SO answer: the GPLv2-licensed wsdl2h generates code that is licensed under GPLv2 also. Therefore you cannot use unlicense on the output. If you link said code with any other code, the whole program must also be GPLv2. Don't just take my, or the linked answer's, words for it. The gSOAP site says so itself (emphasis ...


7

According to the GPL FAQ the output of a GPL program is not licensed under the GNU GPL, unless it copies substantial parts of sourcecode into the output which are complex enough to fall under copyright: Q:In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too? A: Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.


7

If the copyright of the application is entirely yours, then you do have the option to use the GPL, somewhat contrary to the answer by Martijn. This is more intended as a substitute solution, but Martijn's answer clearly explains why the software may be rejected between the licenses. As you release something, you still maintain complete ownership of the ...


7

The MPL-2.0 license does not require that Contributors add a copyright notice or in another way mark files as changed and it also doesn't contain any explicit clauses about mis-representation. Based on that, there seems to be no violation of the license, although you might look deeper in the copyright law of your country if it states anything about mis-...


6

When you use a 3rd party library even though the standard library provides the same functionality, you are adding an unnecessary dependency to your package. Any additional dependencies are problematic because they create maintenance overhead. You will either need to include the library as static files in your package, which means that future updates to the ...


6

I have no idea, but I found this post about MPL-2.0 revision: Internationalization Mozilla has always tried to be a global project, but we were aware that the MPL had some clauses that made non-American users less comfortable with the license. One of these was the section on U.S. Government End Users. This was intended to protect the interests of all ...


6

Can anyone see an advantage to dual licensing MPL/Apache vs simply relicensing? If anything, some actual users may feel strongly about the MPL. Also the MPL 2.0 offers compatibility with v2 of the L/GPL family (thanks to the secondary licenses terms) ... while the FSF considers the Apache 2.0 not compatible with these v2 licenses (but compatible with the ...


5

The Free Software Definition (from the FSF) is: A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition ...


5

Apache 2.0 and all the BSD flavors have no copyleft clause. They allow distribution without sourcecode, so it doesn't matter for them. The MPL Version 1.1 only requires that you make the sourcecode for those parts available which you modified. When there are no modifications you have no obligations to convey any sourcecode. Just make sure that your end-...


5

Having skimmed the apple store TOS I found an interesting passage (emph mine): a. Scope of License: This license granted to you for the Licensed Application by Licensor is limited to a nontransferable license to use the Licensed Application on any Apple-branded products running iOS (including but not limited to iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch) (“iOS ...


5

Am I allowed to distribute the project for money under this license? Yes. However, if you distribute/sell binaries, then you may not charge extra for the source code. And, as the MPL license is a weak copyleft license, you are giving the users of your library also the right to distribute it further, which means that selling copies of the software is not ...


5

Yes, your understanding is correct. You may find it prohibitive, but it is actually a requirement of many open source licenses such as MIT, BSD, or Apache-2 that at least the license text is made available to users of a product that contains (indirect) dependencies under that license. The only thing that the MPL 2.0 adds on top of that is that those users ...


5

Rebranding a software suite is a modification that is allowed by all open-source licenses. If you can effectively use the rebranded software in your commercial product depends on the license terms and if they would conflict with the way you want to exploit the commercial product. The MPL license has 3 main requirements that are relevant here The source code ...


4

Licenses don't apply to individual instances of a product, but to the distribution of a product. If you don't in any way distribute or publish any GPL licensed code, then that license does not apply to you. You can design your library to work with a GPL library if the end user happens to have it, but you don't have to license yours under the GPL to do so. So ...


4

I doubt the reviewers are at all concerned about the (eventual, if it ever gets shared) license of your code. They might be asking (as you somehow answer) why you use a C++ matrix library as part of an R package, given that R has matrix manipulation built-in. Answer that question, which I understand is what they are asking. Don't try to second-guess them. If ...


4

The fundamental question to ask is whether you have modified MPL-licensed source code. It can be generally checked easily because files under the MPL license are signaled with the typical header: /* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public * License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this * file, You can ...


4

This question seems to me to sit at the intersection of two sets of community norms: the scientific community's reproducibility and openness requirements, and the free software community's licensing requirements (the four freedoms). I'm familiar with the scientific community's desire for reproducibility, and note with happiness your footnote that suggests ...


3

It's easy to misunderstand the intent of Section 3.3. I did, too. The answer is not exactly. The work as a whole, and its executables, may be under the terms of your choice. The MPL-covered source files whose object code is being distributed must always remain freely available under the MPL, meaning their recipients would be free to fork the project back ...


3

Given that you are the sole owner of your LLC, and depending on how liberal the open source license is, the difference isn't meaningful. Tax If the code is developed for the LLC as a work-for-hire, that is your LLC pays yourself, it may be classed as an R&D expense, which may be advantageous to do. Consult your local tax laws or your accountant. If you ...


3

MPL license The recommended way of applying the MPL license to your source code is to include Exhibit A in the headers of your source files. However, because it is not always a good solution (some languages do not allow comments for instance), the MPL license contains the following advice: If it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular ...


3

In general, dual licensing to keep the old license is more friendly to forks and distributors, regardless of the specific licenses involved. A fork of your project may contain changes from many other developers, and the maintainers of that fork may not have the legal right to relicense. Similarly, downstream distributors and other users may prefer to ...


3

If you refer to https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/terms#license I cannot fathom a reason why MPL 2.0 or any open source license would not be OK. You are basically granting Google some rights so that they can publish your app. The MPL allows this alright. And in this agreement: 5.2 You grant to the user a non-exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual ...


3

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 ...


3

For an application that is not designed to be used as a plugin and that does not support plugins itself, like your compiler, the only considerations for the copyright license are the licenses of any third party libraries used by the application (do those libraries limit your choice of licenses) the ideals that the authors want to live by with regards to ...


3

(mandatory disclaimer - I am no a lawyer) As far as I understand the license, the fact that you're using monkey patching is inconsequential. The core issue here is that you're using an LGPLed library, modifying its behavior in some way, and then using it. Whether you're monkey patching it, wrapping it, inheriting from it or whatever probably isn't the point ...


3

The X11/MIT license, the Apache 2.0 license, and the Mozilla Public License 2.0 are all compatible with the GNU GPL version 3, which means you may include code licensed under those various licenses in a larger work that is licensed under the GPLv3. The MPL 2.0 and X11/MIT license are also compatible with the older GPLv2 license, but the Apache 2.0 license ...


3

Apache-2.0 code may be relicensed as MPL-2.0 (1). This statement is misleading on 2 accounts. Actual relicensing of code requires the permission of all the copyright holders, but when they give permission, you can relicense from any license A to any licence B regardless of the compatibility between the licenses. This is what gets described in point 2 of [1]...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible