I am sorry if this question isn't appropriate here, but this made me confused.

But what I read in MPL 2.0, any software derivated from a existing one with this license should keep it under such license.

Then my question is:

  • Is the PirateBrowser violating mozilla's license since there is no indication of the source anywhere?
  • What could a user do to enforce such license ? (i.e request the source-code)
  • It looks to me like they didn't modify Firefox Portable itself, but rather just bundle it with Tor and an add-on. – Gort the Robot Dec 15 '14 at 5:02

Section 3.2 of the MPL 2.0 says:

If You distribute Covered Software in Executable Form then such Covered Software must also be made available in Source Code Form, as described in Section 3.1, and You must inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner, at a charge no more than the cost of distribution to the recipient

When they make any modifications to Firefox, they must publish the sourcecode. However, when they don't modify it and only bundle it with a custom configuration and some other software under different license terms (as they claim: "There have been no modifications to any of the packages used"), it is sufficient to point out that the sourcecode can be downloaded for free from Mozilla.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.