[dralley]

MPLv2.

Doesn't have the GPLv2 compatibility problem that Apache 2.0 has. Unlike most copyleft licenses it's file-based, and doesn't restrict linking in any way. Unlike most permissive licenses it provides protection from patent litigation and trademark violation, and provides some "weak" copyleft protections.

Really the only downside is that it's "new" by comparison with most other licenses (9 years old instead of 35+), and that most people don't know anything about it.

[mook]

Unfortunately, MPLv2 has section 10 that means Mozilla Foundation has the ability to arbitrarily create new versions of the license, and it can be used with any MPLv2 licensed code. It's similar to the "GPLv2 or later" clause, but hard-coded. While I currently trust them, there is way to ensure that will always be the case.

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/#versions-of-the-licen...

[harikb]

I don’t get this argument. Can you please explain?

> Each version will be given a distinguishing version number.

This means if I am using MPLv2, if they modify it then it will be MPLv3 or something similar. My existing software should be unaffected

Sure, I can’t refer to v3 and claim the protection of v2. All they are trying to do is to prevent someone from making a fake MPLv3

[mook]

From MPL v2:

> 10.2. Effect of New Versions

> You may distribute the Covered Software under the terms of the version of the License under which You originally received the Covered Software, or under the terms of any subsequent version published by the license steward.

So yes, you can use MPLv2 for your software; whoever receives at can, _at their discretion_, use it under MPLv3 instead. You can, of course, still use MPLv2, if you're also okay with people choosing to use MPLv3 for your software instead.

I believe they have this clause because the original NPL wasn't GPL compatible, and they had to go through some effort to relicense the Mozilla source code, and figured they never want to go through that again.

[harikb]

thanks for the explanation

[JoshTriplett]

GPLv3 doesn't have that compatibility issue either.

[dralley]

This is true, but there's tons of of GPLv2-only software out there.