License comparison
Apache-2.0 vs MPL-2.0: file copyleft
MPL-2.0 draws a source-sharing boundary around covered files. If you distribute them in executable form, you must make their source available under the MPL and tell recipients how to obtain it, even if you did not edit those files. Separate files in a larger work may use other terms. Apache-2.0 has notice and attribution conditions but no comparable covered-file source requirement.
Compare the permissions, limits and obligations recorded in each guide. Read the license text for the full conditions that apply to your release.
Permissions
Apache-2.0
Commercial use
You may ship the code inside a paid product. The license does not restrict commercial use.
Modify
You may change the code, including keeping those changes private, unless a later obligation says otherwise.
Distribute
You may give copies to others. Distribution is what usually turns notice and source duties into real work.
Sublicense
You may include the code under your own product terms, so long as you still meet this license's conditions.
Private use
Use inside your company, including internal forks, does not by itself trigger distribution duties.
Patent use
The license includes an express patent grant from contributors for the licensed work.
MPL-2.0
Commercial use
You may ship the code inside a paid product. The license does not restrict commercial use.
Modify
You may change the code, including keeping those changes private, unless a later obligation says otherwise.
Distribute
You may give copies to others. Distribution is what usually turns notice and source duties into real work.
Private use
Use inside your company, including internal forks, does not by itself trigger distribution duties.
Patent use
These licenses typically include a patent grant covering the licensed files. Read the grant before relying on it in a high-stakes deal.
Limits
Apache-2.0
Hold liable
The authors disclaim warranty. Recipients cannot hold them liable for damages arising from the software, except where law forbids that disclaimer.
Use trademark
Apache-2.0 section 6 says the grant does not let you use the names of the licensor or contributors to endorse products, except as required for NOTICE reproduction.
MPL-2.0
Hold liable
The authors disclaim warranty. Recipients cannot hold them liable for damages arising from the software, except where law forbids that disclaimer.
Use trademark
The license is not a trademark license. Names, logos and product marks stay with their owners unless a separate grant says otherwise.
Open your product
File- or library-scoped copyleft does not, on its face, force you to open your entire application. Reciprocity stays on the covered files.
Obligations
Apache-2.0
Include copyright
Keep the copyright line with every copy or substantial portion you distribute.
Include license
Keep the license text with every copy or substantial portion you distribute. A web page is not a substitute for notices inside a shipped artifact.
Include notice
If a NOTICE file travelled with the work, reproduce the attribution notices from it in the form the license describes.
State changes
Mark changed files so they are not misrepresented as the original.
MPL-2.0
Include copyright
Keep copyright notices on the covered files you distribute.
Include license
Keep the license text with the covered files, and say that those files are under this license.
Disclose source
Covered Software you distribute in executable form must have source available under the MPL, modified or not.
Same license
Covered files stay under the MPL. Your own separate files can stay under other terms.
License texts
Practical guidance for procurement review, not legal advice. Confirm high-stakes use with counsel.