A rare research license with reciprocal source duties. Read the actual text: little settled practice exists around its exact scope.
On this page
What it does
The OCLC Research Public License 2.0 comes from OCLC, the library services cooperative, and covers research software it released. It is reciprocal, which means the license requires the covered code and your changes to it to stay available under the same terms when you distribute. It also carries attribution and notice wording of its own, plus a clause against using OCLC's name to endorse your product. The license is close to absent from mainstream package registries, so when one shows up in your inventory it usually arrived through a vendored copy or an internal fork.
Details
Two things make this one worth a careful read rather than a quick classification. It is rare, so there is very little settled practice to lean on. The exact boundary of its reciprocity is not something to assume from the family it resembles. If you only run the code on your own servers, nothing here is triggered, because there is no network clause. If you ship it, or hand it to another developer as part of a library, plan the source availability for the covered code. Open the actual license text rather than a summary of it.
Pros
- You can link the library from closed code in the way the license describes.
- File-level reciprocity is easier to isolate than GPL-style whole-work copyleft.
Cons
- Vendoring or statically linking can pull more of your tree into the covered set than a dynamic link would.
- The source-offer duty is real the moment you distribute binaries that include modified covered files.
What it allows and requires
Choose a category to see the full grant in one scannable list. Permissions show what the license allows, limits show what it withholds, and obligations show the conditions your release process must satisfy.
Permissions
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
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
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 files you change and distribute must have source available under the same license.
What OCLC-2.0 requires when you ship
When you distribute a binary that includes OCLC-2.0 code, notice still travels with the copy, and the corresponding source has to be available under the same license. Internal use without a copy leaving the company is a different situation. The list below is the shipping work: what a recipient of that binary can demand, and what you record so a buyer can see it.
You are meeting the source condition when the covered code and your changes to it are available under the OCLC license to everyone you distributed to.
You have handled the notices when the OCLC copyright and attribution wording travels with every copy, in the form the license text asks for.
You stay on the right side of the endorsement clause when nothing in your marketing suggests that OCLC backs or sponsors your product.
You have done the work this one needs when somebody has read the full text and written down which parts of your build the reciprocity reaches.
The duties named in OCLC-2.0
Notice still travels with the copy. On top of that, OCLC-2.0 names a source duty. These are the conditions in the text. The how-to above is when they become real work.
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 files you change and distribute must have source available under the same license.
Things to be aware of
- A research license is treated like MIT because it is unfamiliar and small. Read the text; reciprocal terms do not become permissive through low popularity.
- The scope is guessed from a similar license. Nothing here is settled enough to copy across from the MPL, so write down what you concluded and why.
What the OCLC Research Public License 2.0 does not do
Search results often flatten OCLC Research Public License 2.0 into a slogan. These are the usual misreads. OCLC-2.0 is a grant with conditions, not a permission to skip the paperwork below.
- the OCLC Research Public License 2.0 does not force you to open your whole application. The reciprocal duty stays on the covered files.
- It is not "permissive with extra paperwork." Change a covered file and ship it, and that file's source has to be available under the same license.
How OCLC-2.0 differs from nearby licenses
These licenses are often confused with OCLC-2.0, but their release duties differ. Each row summarizes what the license requires when you ship. Open the linked page for the full checklist.
- OCLC-2.0
- A rare research license with reciprocal source duties. Read the actual text: little settled practice exists around its exact scope.
- MPL-1.1
- The 1998 Mozilla license. Its source duty attaches to the files you modified, not to every MPL file you ship, and it has no GPL bridge.
Common questions about OCLC Research Public License 2.0
Answers to common questions about what OCLC Research Public License 2.0 requires, when its duties apply, and what evidence belongs with a release.
What is the OCLC Research Public License 2.0?
The OCLC Research Public License 2.0 comes from OCLC, the library services cooperative, and covers research software it released. It is reciprocal, which means the license requires the covered code and your changes to it to stay available under the same terms when you distribute. It also carries attribution and notice wording of its own, plus a clause against using OCLC's name to endorse your product. The license is close to absent from mainstream package registries, so when one shows up in your inventory it usually arrived through a vendored copy or an internal fork.
What does OCLC-2.0 require when you ship a product?
You are meeting the source condition when the covered code and your changes to it are available under the OCLC license to everyone you distributed to. You have handled the notices when the OCLC copyright and attribution wording travels with every copy, in the form the license text asks for. You stay on the right side of the endorsement clause when nothing in your marketing suggests that OCLC backs or sponsors your product. You have done the work this one needs when somebody has read the full text and written down which parts of your build the reciprocity reaches.
Does hosting a product that uses OCLC-2.0 trigger extra duties?
Hosting alone usually does not trigger the source duty for OCLC-2.0. Shipping a binary, a container, or an on-prem build does. Notice still travels with any copy you hand over.
Can I keep my application closed if I use OCLC-2.0?
OCLC-2.0 is library-scoped copyleft. Your application can stay closed if recipients can replace the library with their own build. Static linking makes that expensive. The library itself still ships with corresponding source and notices. Confirm the linking story on the component, then record it.
What is corresponding source for OCLC-2.0?
Corresponding source is the source a recipient needs to build and run the same binary, including scripts and interface files the license names. Hosting a repository URL can be an offer. The offer has to match what you actually shipped. SourceTrust records that a person on your team confirmed the offer. It does not publish your source and does not host a mirror.
How is OCLC-2.0 different from Mozilla Public License 1.1?
OCLC-2.0 asks this: A rare research license with reciprocal source duties. Read the actual text: little settled practice exists around its exact scope. Mozilla Public License 1.1 asks this: The 1998 Mozilla license. Its source duty attaches to the files you modified, not to every MPL file you ship, and it has no GPL bridge. Open the Mozilla Public License 1.1 page for what that license requires when you ship. Do not treat the SPDX ids as interchangeable because the short names look similar.
Where do I record OCLC-2.0 for a buyer?
OCLC-2.0 has a catalog row marked copyleft, so a source offer item appears on the project checklist in the Distributed binary and Mixed contexts. Because the license is rare, the fetcher often finds no matching reference text and the result lands as unconfirmed or not found rather than as a confirmed match. That is the honest outcome, and it waits for you. Paste the text from the package, accept the resolution, and the component behaves like any other.
Where do I record OCLC-2.0 for a buyer?
OCLC-2.0 has a catalog row marked copyleft, so a source offer item appears on the project checklist in the Distributed binary and Mixed contexts. Because the license is rare, the fetcher often finds no matching reference text and the result lands as unconfirmed or not found rather than as a confirmed match.
That is the honest outcome, and it waits for you. Paste the text from the package, accept the resolution, and the component behaves like any other.
Read /docs/reviewing-component for the flow.
See also
The hub is the pillar for this cluster. Sibling licenses are the other spokes. Product FAQ links explain how SourceTrust records the duty, not the license text itself.
Practical guidance for procurement review, not legal advice. Confirm high-stakes use with counsel.