Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Public License 2.0 Released

revealingheart writes "Mozilla has announced the release of the Mozilla Public License 2.0. The new version provides for compatibility with the Apache and GPL licenses, improved patent protections and recent changes in copyright law. The full license text is available online. Mozilla has updated their wiki with plans to upgrade their codebase; Bugzilla has also said that they will update (with an exemption to keep the project MPL only). The MPL was previously incompatible with other copyleft licenses like the GPL. The new version is compatible (unless exempted) and doesn't require multiple licenses (as currently stands with Firefox and Thunderbird). This will allow Mozilla to incorporate Apache-licensed code; but will mean that their software becomes incompatible with GPL2 code."

8 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. And with the new rapid release schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mozilla Public License 3.0 will be released in April.

  2. So is it compatible or not? by sconeu · · Score: 2

    TFS says that the license is now GPL compatible, but that the codebase will no longer be GPL compatible.

    Or is it GPLv3 compatible only?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:So is it compatible or not? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      MPL was never GPL compatible. MPL2 is now GPLv3 compatible. GPLv3 is GPLv2-incompatible too. Previously, most Mozilla code was triple-licensed LGPL, GPL and MPL. Presumably now they are going to switch to MPL2-only.

      The CDDL is also MPL-with-some-fixes, so it will be interesting to see how MPL2 and CDDL compare.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Re:Big Open Source by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So a license update to make the MPL simpler and *more* compatible with other open source licenses is somehow discouraging re-use? Do explain.

    Its really simple. The MPL will be more compatible with other open source licenses (particularly, GPLv3 and ASL), but the software (particularly Firefox and Thunderbird) will only be licensed under the MPL, rather than triple licensed under the MPL, GPLv2, and LGPLv2.

    Consequently, while the new license is compatible with more other licenses than the old MPL was, the software will no longer be licensed in a manner that is compatible with some of the licenses under which it was previously available. This has at least the potential for discouraging re-use of the software.

  4. Innovation in licensing by ronocdh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even as an ardent supporter of FLOSS, I'm pleased to see influential companies exploring options other than the GPL, especially in a way that tries to maintain community relationships by keeping an eye on compatibility. Mozilla is one of the only organizations whose genuine dedication to creating and sustaining an open web I don't question.

  5. Is this the "GPL plus linking exception"? by spitzak · · Score: 2

    I want to release software (libraries, mostly) that anybody can use in any project they want, either open or closed source. However unlike the BSD or public domain, I want *my* source code to be "GPL'd": if you use it and modify it, you must make available, under the same license, the modified version of my source code. You can of course still link this with your own source code which remains closed (there may also be some rules to prevent cheats like modifying the source to call something in a closed-source portion but I am not too concerned about that). I would also want to make sure my code can be used by GPL or LGPL software by requiring the license to be compatible.

    This is not the GPL (which requires your source code to be GPL'd as well). It is not the LGPL because it removes the weird "you must distribute the software in a way that lets it be relinked with a new version" provision (this provision actually *hurts* development of OSS libraries, as it technically means that end users expect me to not alter the abi, which is pretty much impossible and a waste of time for a little-used library. It also prevents static linking of my library which greatly reduces it's appeal).

    I have been desparate for a well-known three-letter name for the license I want. What we have been doing is distributing under the GPL plus a "linking exception" that describes the above (actually we use the LGPL to make it more clear, but the linking exception hides any differences between that and the GPL).

    Can anybody confirm if the MPL 2.0 is what I want?

    1. Re:Is this the "GPL plus linking exception"? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      See LGPL 2.1 section 6.a or LGPL 3.0 section 4.d.0.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. Re:Flash by nullchar · · Score: 2

    i use IE in virtualbox in linux to watch videos on youtube...

    Sorry but, that is retarded.

    FlashPlayer "Square" hasn't crashed on me in 3 years! Even when it was a Labs project in alpha, it was stable on x64. Granted, I use NoScript to block 3rd party scripts (I temp whitelist the current domain) so that blocks most Flash ads and other junk from loading.

    Download the tarball: http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/otherversions/

    Remove whatever flash came with your distro, throw libflashplayer.so in: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ and restart FF. `ps aux | grep plugin-container` might use a lot of ram after a long browsing session, but it's super-stable and has been for a long time.