It seems like you can trivially get around the intended rules of the MPL 2.0 by simply putting your changes in a separate file… and then you don’t have to share 99% of your modifications?
It seems like you can trivially get around the intended rules of the MPL 2.0 by simply putting your changes in a separate file… and then you don’t have to share 99% of your modifications?
That’s not a loophole, it’s the purpose of the license. The MPL was made to make embedding an otherwise open-source codebase into a new (non-open) project doable. There used to be several commercial products that used the gecko web engine and other mozilla code, and mozilla code was generally provided under a dual (MPL/GPL) or triple (MPL/GPL/LGPL) license so that developers could choose.
Seems kinda pointless, no?.. I mean, I get MPL is a weak copyleft license… but sheesh, that weak? If the consumers get to hide 99% of their code, why not just pick MIT? Having the consumers publish a 1 line change seems pretty worthless.
I understand if I want stronger protections, I could move to a GPL license, but is there no middle ground? MPL doesn’t really seem like middle… it seems like just 1 step away from MIT.
LGPL seems interesting, but it doesn’t really seem compatible with languages like Go, where everything is compiled statically.
I guess I’m missing the context the MPL was created for.
My guess would be that it’s geard towards bugfixes. If a consumer discovers and fixes a bug in the original source, they’re obliged to push it back upstream, or at least publish it so others can. Vut they still get the freedom of MIT to add new closed-source features or work it into a larger-scale closed-source project.
I bet it’s like that xkcd comic about competing standards since there seems to be more than necessary.
E: https://xkcd.com/927/