Open Source

31181 readers

129 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Cloak@lemmy.ml

kevincox@lemmy.ml

CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml

Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml

1044

What open-source software would you like more people to know about? (reddthat.com)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

374 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't seem compatible with the MPL. Or is it just their modifications that aren't in the original source files that are licensed this way?

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

2.5. Floorp is not completely open-source same. Floorp's a part of codes are protected by copyright law and is not licensed under an open-source license. You may not use part of Floorp's code in your own projects without permission from the Licensor.

2.6. If MPL2.0 or any other open-source license notation is present in the file, the file is available as open source.

It seems like their modifications and the resulting application are proprietary.

The MPL is an open-source license designed to protect its own code. If you modify MPL code, you need to publish those modifications under the MPL. That's the focus of the license. There's no "viral" requirement to affect the licensing provisions of the rest of your code.

It seems this is a legal way of using MPL code.