License explanation is confusing me

[hyandell]

I'm confused with the license explanation in the README.md. Is it your intent that no one can privately modify this, or does Q6 of the Mozilla FAQ apply?

---

Q6: I want to distribute software which is available under the MPL, either changed or unchanged, within my organization. What do I have to do?

Nothing. The right to private modification and distribution (and inside a company or organization counts as 'private') is another right guaranteed by free and open source software licenses, including the MPL.

---

If that applies, can I suggest making it clearer in the README.md explanation that distribution is also needed for licensing of modifications to be required?

[arnehormann]

The LICENSE is binding, the README is not. So Q6 applies.
The README is very broad and not written for people with use cases like that. That's what the FAQ and the LICENSE are there for. If you intend to do anything that specific, you might as well read them.
I don't think clarification is necessary and I don't have an idea how we can summarise a full license more succinctly while still directing it at all users.
Compare https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-(mpl-2) - tldrlegal specialises in this stuff and also doesn't mention that clause.

[hyandell]

Thank you for updating the intent Arne.

I'd think that modifying and not distributing is a more common use case than modifying and distributing (given we're talking about a database driver).

My suggested change to have the readme more closely meet the intent decision to use MPL 2.0 would be to add the words "When distributing"; ie:

"When distributing, you must publish the source code of any changed files licensed under the MPL 2.0 under a) the MPL 2.0 itself or b) a compatible license (e.g. GPL 3.0 or Apache License 2.0)

[julienschmidt]

Pull requests welcome 😉

[hyandell]

Pull request sent: #280 :)