{"id":"MPL-1.0","title":"Mozilla Public License 1.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.html","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"Models the first Mozilla Public License as the earliest member of the chain whose 2.0 version the library already holds as MozillaPublicLicenseVersion20. The reciprocity is file level and is attached to the acts the text names. Nothing here is legal advice.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Section 2.1(a) grants a licence \"to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, or as part of a Larger Work\", so dalicc:sublicense is a permission. Section 2.1(b) grants a licence \"under patents now or hereafter owned or controlled by Initial Developer, to make, have made, use and sell\", so dalicc:patentGrant is a permission. The review group notes suggested MPL-1.0 has no patent clause; the text does carry one, in 2.1(b) and 2.2(b).","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"No dalicc:promote statement is made: unlike MPL-1.1, the 1.0 grant is not qualified by the words \"other than patent or trademark\" and the text says nothing about trademarks at all, so the library records neither a grant nor a refusal. There is no patent retaliation clause in 1.0, so dalicc:patentRetaliationTermination is absent too. dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited because the covered code itself may not be moved to other terms.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The reciprocity of this licence is file level, not whole work: the Source Code form of the covered code must stay under this licence, while a Larger Work combining it with other code may be distributed as a single product. The record therefore attaches cc:ShareAlike to odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive rather than to the odrl:Set, which is the shape the existing CommonDevelopmentAndDistributionLicense10 record uses. cc:SourceCode, cc:Notice and cc:Attribution hang off the same three acts, and dalicc:modificationNotice off odrl:modify and odrl:derive.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Section 3.6 permits the executable version to be distributed \"under a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License\", which the model cannot express next to a cc:ShareAlike duty without contradicting itself. It is quoted verbatim, together with the termination clause, the U.S. government end user clause and the applicable-law clause. The warranty and liability sections are quoted word for word in their own predicates.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"minor","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"The grant itself is world-wide (\"a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license\"), so cc:jurisdiction stays dalicc:worldwide and the applicable-law and venue clause is quoted in dalicc:additionalClauses instead of being turned into a bpicounty IRI. A choice of law is not a jurisdiction port and the library reserves cc:jurisdiction with a country for ports.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Two clauses have no vocabulary term. Automatic termination on breach with a cure period is a policy quality with no property to hang it on; proposed term dalicc:terminatesOnBreach as a property over the existing dalicc:terminationOnBreach concept. The survival of validly granted end user licences after termination has no term either; proposed term dalicc:sublicenseSurvival. Both clauses are quoted in dalicc:additionalClauses.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check of app.services.composer with the dependency graph dg_default returned an empty conflict list. cc:ShareAlike is required and dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, which is the combination the check expects; asserting both cc:ShareAlike and a dalicc:ChangeLicense permission would have been reported as a direct conflict.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"Follows licensedata/licenses/CommonDevelopmentAndDistributionLicense10.ttl for the placement of the reciprocity duties and MozillaPublicLicenseVersion20 for the rest. It differs from the 2.0 record by carrying dalicc:patentGrant and dalicc:sublicense, which the 2.0 record omits although the 2.0 text grants patents as well.","action":"none"}],"family":"Mozilla and CDDL","port_of":null,"variant_kind":"version","notes":"Modelled from the SPDX plain text. The typewriter quotation marks of the source (``AS IS'') are reproduced verbatim in the warranty clause."}