Skip to main content
40 votes
Accepted

Is Linux Mint's version of Firefox really Free software? Is it compliant with the MPL?

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, ...
unor's user avatar
  • 5,670
35 votes

If I make my website open source, does it include page content?

If you create the content of the website, you can license it however you wish, regardless of the licensing of the code and/or layout. It's perfectly valid to have a license that boils down to "...
Mureinik's user avatar
  • 5,142
23 votes

How do you work with open core code efficiently in Git?

Most version control systems (like git) don't allow to split the repository into "visible" and "invisible" parts. What you can do with git is to have the public part in one ...
vonbrand's user avatar
  • 5,277
20 votes
Accepted

Pros and Cons of using MPL-2.0 license?

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 ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
20 votes
Accepted

Can I sell UNMODIFIED Open source software without providing the actual source code?

GPLv3 directly addresses your question, so no speculation is required. Conveying unmodified code is covered in s4, and conveying other forms than source code in s6. s6 says that You may convey a ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.6k
11 votes

Could a license that allows later versions impose obligations or remove protections for licensors in the future?

There is some risk, but perhaps not as much as you think. Hypothetically, let's say the FSF release v4 of the "GNU GPL" which has identical wording to the MIT License. At this point, it is ...
Philip Kendall's user avatar
8 votes

What are some differences between MPLv2 and EPLv2?

Reading through both licenses, I found several minor differences. As stated by techboyg5, the Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 is compatible with the GPL by default unless provided with the notice ...
JerryG's user avatar
  • 81
8 votes

How do you work with open core code efficiently in Git?

A common solution I've seen is to design the core for extensibility and put the closed-source elements into extensions. Since the closed-source portions of the product interact only through the ...
Mark's user avatar
  • 981
8 votes
Accepted

Could a license that allows later versions impose obligations or remove protections for licensors in the future?

You seem to be referring to the following part of the standard GPL license notice: Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or ...
bta's user avatar
  • 921
8 votes

Altering of MPL2.0-based code

The MPL does not require that your changes are accepted by the upstream project. The requirement is that the source code is available and that it is licensed under the MPL 2.0. You can just refer your ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
8 votes

MPL license: Can I completely lose grants?

Doesn't that mean that the contributors could ban anybody from having grants permanently? Yes, but only if you were out of compliance in the first place, and the "first time exception" ...
Philip Kendall's user avatar
7 votes
Accepted

What can I do if somebody copied my MPL-2.0 licensed code and released under their name?

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 ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
7 votes
Accepted

What is the best weak copyleft licence against patent trolling?

First up, there is no copyright license, open-source or otherwise, that can protect you from a patent infringement lawsuit by someone who control a patent but has not made any contributions to the ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
6 votes
Accepted

Dual license or relicense when the new license is more permissive?

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/...
Philippe Ombredanne's user avatar
6 votes

Is monkey-patching considered a modification of the original work licensed under LGPL or MPL licenses?

(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,...
Mureinik's user avatar
  • 5,142
6 votes
Accepted

Licensing a library under the MPL

Allow me to share a fragment from my book Entreprenerd: Building a Multi-Million-Dollar Business with Open Source Software as an introduction to my answer: I developed two PDF libraries. I started ...
Bruno Lowagie's user avatar
6 votes

Altering of MPL2.0-based code

I assume that: You have a proprietary software that is the "Larger Work" according to the license. In this proprietary software, you use the MPL2-licensed software ("Covered Software&...
ruben2020's user avatar
  • 2,333
5 votes
Accepted

License for research projects

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 ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.6k
5 votes

How to disclose source of a software with mozilla public licence?

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: /* ...
Zimm i48's user avatar
  • 5,597
5 votes

Can any Firefox add-on be free software now that add-on signing is required?

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 (...
Zimm i48's user avatar
  • 5,597
5 votes
Accepted

MPL-2.0: Propagation of Section 3.2

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 ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
5 votes
Accepted

Is it possible to re-brand an MPL licensed open source software?

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 ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
5 votes
Accepted

Using of library under MIT license with dependency on library under MPL-2.0

Using MIT licensed and MPL-2.0 licensed dependencies in your closed-source product is legal if you meet these requirements: You have a copy of the MIT license in your documentation. You can precede ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
5 votes
Accepted

Python's tqdm package license

This repository contains files with 2 different licenses. Some files are under MIT license, some under MPL. They co-exist in the same package. This does not appear to be a dual-licensed situation, ...
Martin_in_AUT's user avatar
5 votes
Accepted

Can I create my own exception to the Apache license? Is it good practice?

It won't work. If Bob takes your software and incorporates some code from third-party package C, which is under (eg) GPLv2, then although your exception allows Bob to relicense your code to GPLv2, ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.6k
5 votes

If I make my website open source, does it include page content?

I think you're asking the wrong question here, but I'm going to answer it as given, in the hope that this helps clear things up. If I make my website open source, does it include page content? Do ...
Keiji's user avatar
  • 229
4 votes
Accepted

MPL 1.1: Re-distribute under MPL 2.0 without modification

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 ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
4 votes
Accepted

Copyrighting open source code using a business name vs as an individual

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, ...
congusbongus's user avatar
  • 8,949
4 votes

Is question 25 from MPL 2.0 FAQ correct?

With the repository content as presented, there are two possibilities regarding the licensing status: The presence of the notice in Exhibit A in the files (apart from it being in Exhibit A itself) is ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
4 votes
Accepted

Do I have to disclose changes made to MPL-2.0 licensed code running on server?

The MPL-2.0 license does not define the term "distribution", so the normal interpretation applies. This means that distribution only takes place when files are transferred from one party to another. ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar

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