
Ask HN: Why is there so little discussion of the MPL 2.0 license on HN? - reluctantsheep
The license appeals to me as a good middle ground between GPL and MIT but I am unable to find a high quality debate about its merits or flaws on HN or anywhere else for that matter.
======
kazinator
It isn't a middle ground; it's a copyleft, like the GPL. Distribution of
executables requires source code.

It's hard to imagine what a middle ground between GPL and MIT would look like,
because the key difference (the requirement that modifications must be shared
in source code form) is a yes-no proposition.

(One idea is a license which allows redistribution without source code for
some limited time period, after which the source must be provided to the
users.)

~~~
open-source-ux
It is a middle ground of sorts for certain types of situations.

It requires your modifications of MPL-licensed code to be released publicly if
you distribute your product or service outside your company.

However, if your changes to MPL-licensed code are only distributed inside your
company, you do not need to release those changes publicly.

The MPL 2.0 FAQ states:

> "The MPL fills a useful space in the spectrum of free and open source
> software licenses, sitting between the Apache license, which does not
> require modifications to be shared, and the GNU family of licenses, which
> requires modifications to be shared under a much broader set of
> circumstances than the MPL."

The above taken from: [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/)

Like other copyleft licenses, the license text isn't particularly easy to read
as the lengthy FAQ above attests.

