missing MPL-2.0 license texts in most crates from this project

[decathorpe]

It looks like most subprojects here are MPL-2.0 licensed, but the repository doesn't include a copy of the MPL-2.0 license text. One of the terms of this license is that redistributed sources contain a copy of the license text, so any crates published from this repository currently don't fulfil this requirement.

Note that there are some crates (servo_arc, malloc_size_of) that are Apache-2.0 / MIT, and they actually do contain license texts for these two licenses, but all other workspace members are missing a LICENSE text. Adding it once at the repository root and referencing it with symbolic links in published workspace members should be enough for "cargo publish" to include the file when publishing.

[jschwe]

3. Responsibilities
   3.1. Distribution of Source Form

All distribution of Covered Software in Source Code Form, including any Modifications that You create or to which You contribute, must be under the terms of this License. You must inform recipients that the Source Code Form of the Covered Software is governed by the terms of this License, and how they can obtain a copy of this License. You may not attempt to alter or restrict the recipients’ rights in the Source Code Form.

We have the following header in each source file:

/* 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 https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. */

It seems to me that linking to the source of the license fulfills that obligation.

[decathorpe]

Fair point, this might fulfil the obligation literally, if maybe not in spirit. It's still standard practice (and a courtesy to downstream consumers) to include at least one copy of the license text in the repository. I don't think I've ever seen any projects that have intentionally not done this.

[jschwe]

For context, this repository is basically a downstream fork with a couple of patches ontop of the upstream mozilla repository. Mozilla decided to remove the license files over a decade ago (and I believe they would understand the spirit of their own license best).

and a courtesy to downstream consumers

Is there anything specific that is blocked by a missing LICENSE file? The license-related tools I've interacted with in the Rust ecosystem, have all been perfectly capable of parsing the license information from Cargo.toml, and there is quite a bit of tooling which also supports parsing a repository and reading file headers to determine the license.

Every patch we add (that won't be accepted by upstream) is something we need to carry around ourselves, so it would help to understand if there is something specific being blocked or made inconvenient by this.

[decathorpe]

I'm working on the packaging of several Rust crates from this project for Fedora Linux - currently, selectors and servo_arc, but might need to add malloc_size_of too in the future, if any project adds a non-optional dependency on it. The latter two are MIT / Apache-2.0 dual-licensed and include license texts, but selectors (and any others from this workspace) don't. Our policy is, basically, that packages MUST include a copy of the project's license terms. And if projects don't have a copy, we need to include the canonical copy. In this case, I think that would be https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/ but in .txt format, if I can find that somewhere ...

EDIT: It appears that adding a copy of the license text in case the project doesn't include one is not a hard requirement, iff the license terms themselves do not mandate it. So my pointing out that it is missing and your response that you intentionally don't have a copy seems to satisfy my duties as a packager of this software. 🙃

(our relevant documentation: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text )

[Conan-Kudo]

For context, this repository is basically a downstream fork with a couple of patches ontop of the upstream mozilla repository. Mozilla decided to remove the license files over a decade ago (and I believe they would understand the spirit of their own license best).

Yes, this is true, but Mozilla retained a top-level license notice with a pointer to a file that has the actual license texts (viewable from the application) that is distributed with the binaries.

Stylo doesn't have the benefit of this, so it should be shipping a license file.