Mizunashi Mana has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to MPL Notice Template.
Last active
December 2, 2018 06:30
-
-
Save mizunashi-mana/0c74ff000830f48cb2881cb686f95b06 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Notice template (this template is licensed under the CC0.)
You must read this notice before distributing any copies of files of this project or module.
This project or module is dual-licensed under the Mozilla Public License 2.0 (at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/) and the Apache License 2.0 (at https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0).
This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
By definition 1.4 of the Mozilla Public License 2.0, the above notice means all of files of this project or module are included in "Covered Software". If anyone distributes just a copy of a file of this project or module by the Mozilla Public License 2.0, he or she may add this notice by any reasonable method (e.g. as a comment) instead of attached this document.
@falsandtru Thanks for review! I agree with most your points and I fixed this template.
But, I can't understand one advise:
If you select the MPL 2.0 License for distribution
I think the regal restrictions of the license will be applied to all depended projects. So this sentence should be removed.
I think that dual-license means free to choose from presented licenses. And, your thought seems it is multiple applied license, that's right? I inserted the statement from the former mean since MPL notice should not be applied in a case of APL chosen.
But, I can't understand one advise:
It is my fault. That point is fixed with the latest revision, never mind.
the Mozilla Public License 2.0 and the Apache 2.0 License.
Maybe you shouldn't use markdown syntax such as link syntax in text for readability.
Apache 2.0 License
Apache License 2.0 may be more formal.
If you choice the MPL 2.0
Should use the same representation "Mozilla Public License 2.0".
If you choice
Probably we have to use more correct representation such as "licenser" instead of "you".
@falsandtru Thanks for more review. Your proposals are all rights. I updated this template.
I restored copyright ownership for the Apache License 2.0 (for the MPL 2.0, this badge is not necessary just as @falsandtru said).
FYI, I'm going to use the following notice.
Notice
You must read this notice before distributing any copies of files of this project or module.
Source
The source project is https://github.com/falsandtru/spica.
License
This project or module is dual-licensed under the Mozilla Public License 2.0 and the Apache License 2.0.
Mozilla Public License 2.0
This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I think the regal restrictions of the license will be applied to all depended projects. So this sentence should be removed.
Putting a notice file written as follows is not enough?
https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/blob/master/NOTICE.md is a good example but probably copyright is not required. Besides, when we use multiple licenses, that notice may lack information of the other licenses such as Apache 2.0 in our case. So I propose the following notice.
Notice
You must read this notice before you distribute a copy of files of this project or module.
License
This project or module is licensed under the MPL 2.0 and Apache License 2.0.
MPL 2.0
This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.