I believe you've stated the differences between the Mozilla Public License and the GNU Lesser General Public License accurately, and either may suit your needs just fine, but you are skipping over the most important difference between the two licenses:
Who can make new versions?
Both the MPL (section 10) and the LGPL (section 14) include in their license ...
It appears that you have not carefully read the license.
Termination of the type you describe only applies to patent infringement claims.
Termination only applies to the rights granted to you by the infringer, not to your rights to use the software. The license is very specific about that.
You're given time to work out the problem with the infringer. This ...
The answer of DougM and AER makes a fair point.
MPLv2 and LGPLv3 with static exception are the same regarding the events that would trigger the copyleft.
However, I think we are missing another very important difference between LGPL and MPL. When the copyleft is triggered, the copyleft applies to:
for MPL: to the very exact same files of your original ...
Unless your project has been using "Mozilla 1.1 only",
it is implicitly using "Mozilla 1.1 or higher".
Therefore, the project can be upgraded to Mozilla 2.0 (or even forked,
without the consent of the contributors).
If you want to stay with Mozilla 1.1, all you need to do
is to not mix Apache and Mozilla licensed code in the same source file.
Your project ...
Yes, you can combine code that is licensed under MPL 2.0 into a project that contains source code from one or more other licenses, including the MIT License. However, the individual source files licensed under the MPL will need to remain licensed under the MPL, including any modifications that you make to the MPL-licensed files. If you modify any MPL files, ...
The license allows you to create a fork, if you follow the rules that can be summarized as
Your fork must use the same license
You must state clearly and prominently that your fork is derived from KomodoEdit
The project did not contain any explicit text regarding the use of ActiveState's logo (at least not in the obvious places where I looked), but ...
It should be sufficient to just read the MPL.
3.2. 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, ...
As long as "A" is published under GPL rather than LGPL, "B" is considered a derived work and must be distributed under GPL. GPL only stops at process boundary, only LGPL stops at dynamic link boundary.
Wikipedia Multi-license description says:
When software is multi-licensed, recipients can choose which terms under which they want to use or distribute the software. The distributor may or may not apply a fee to either option.
From my personal grasp on the subject (IANAL and I am very new to licensing):
I would use the library under the terms & ...
Everything you are allowed to do is explicitly covered by each of those licences, and explained by related FAQs or similar documents. You really need to read them.
But the answer is you're probably OK. Public domain says do what you like with the code (other than pretend you wrote it). ISC is the BSD licence, which is very permissive and popular with ...
A software license tells you two things:
What you can do with the software
What you cannot do with the software
However, a software license does not offer any guarantees. Specifically:
It doesn't prevent anyone from suing you, even if you follow the license in good faith, and
It doesn't prevent said person from winning in court, if they do sue you.
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 ...
The Mozilla FAQ page on MPL licensed code makes clear in Q9 and Q10 that if you distribute software containing MPL licensed code, you must make available the source of the MPL licensed portion of code "including any Modifications that you have created".
So it's not ok to give the source of the original code instead of your modified version.
From reading the Wikipedia page on the MPL, it seems to me that you can "link from code with a different license". The license is even marked as such in the summary box.
If you read the actual license, in its 2.0 version, section "Distribution of a Larger Work", you can read that you have to keep the library in question under MPL, regardless if you ...
There are two possible scenarios, with different consequences for the licensing position.
Your application reads the dictionary as an input file. Your application does not care where the dictionary comes from as long as it is in the right format. Providing the dictionary along with your application is essentially a convenience for your users, if they want ...
Code can be released under multiple licenses.
If you don't have permission to use the original file and you "launder" it like you're suggesting, you aren't really changing anything. Judges aren't dumb, so if you're essentially hoping that copying it in a weird way will make it legal when copying it directly would not, stop thinking that.
Also, don't ...
(This answer was not intended for this question, but for a more specific one about git, and covers its specific case in greater detail than this question would practically allow. See comment 599873 for more info. It'll stay here in this form at least until the matter is resolved.)
Git is covered by GPLv2.
Generally, if you have any questions on FSF's ...