Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@mizunashi-mana
Last active December 2, 2018 06:30
Show Gist options
  • Save mizunashi-mana/0c74ff000830f48cb2881cb686f95b06 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save mizunashi-mana/0c74ff000830f48cb2881cb686f95b06 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Notice template (this template is licensed under the CC0.)

CC0

Mizunashi Mana has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to MPL Notice Template.

Notice

You must read this notice before distributing any copies of files of this project or module.

License

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).

The Mozilla Public License Notice

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.

@mizunashi-mana
Copy link
Author

@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.

@falsandtru
Copy link

falsandtru commented Dec 1, 2018

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".

@mizunashi-mana
Copy link
Author

@falsandtru Thanks for more review. Your proposals are all rights. I updated this template.

@mizunashi-mana
Copy link
Author

I restored copyright ownership for the Apache License 2.0 (for the MPL 2.0, this badge is not necessary just as @falsandtru said).

@falsandtru
Copy link

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