Question 1

What is the difference between AGPL-3.0-only and MPL-2.0?

Accepted Answer

Hosted SaaS: AGPL-3.0-only — AGPL-3.0-only section 13 requires that users interacting with a modified version over a network be offered the corresponding source of the whole work. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which triggers that obligation. This is the clause that makes AGPL behave differently from GPL for hosted services. MPL-2.0 — MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference. Distributed binary: AGPL-3.0-only — AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is distributed binary or application, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it. MPL-2.0 — MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference. On-premises delivery: AGPL-3.0-only — AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is software delivered to a customer environment, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it. MPL-2.0 — MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference. Published library: AGPL-3.0-only — AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is a published library, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it. MPL-2.0 — MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.

Question 2

For hosted saas, is AGPL-3.0-only or MPL-2.0 more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only section 13 requires that users interacting with a modified version over a network be offered the corresponding source of the whole work. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which triggers that obligation. This is the clause that makes AGPL behave differently from GPL for hosted services. MPL-2.0: MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.

Question 3

For distributed binary, is AGPL-3.0-only or MPL-2.0 more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is distributed binary or application, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it. MPL-2.0: MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.

Question 4

For on-premises delivery, is AGPL-3.0-only or MPL-2.0 more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is software delivered to a customer environment, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it. MPL-2.0: MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.

Question 5

For internal use only, is AGPL-3.0-only or MPL-2.0 more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only section 13 applies when users interact with the software remotely over a network, and its inherited GPL terms apply on distribution. Your distribution model is internal use only, so neither obligation arises. MPL-2.0: MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.

Question 6

For published library, is AGPL-3.0-only or MPL-2.0 more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is a published library, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it. MPL-2.0: MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.

How you ship	AGPL-3.0-only	MPL-2.0
Hosted SaaS	Obligation triggered	No obligation	They differ here
Distributed binary	Obligation triggered	No obligation	They differ here
On-premises delivery	Obligation triggered	No obligation	They differ here
Internal use only	No obligation	No obligation	Same
Published library	Obligation triggered	No obligation	They differ here

AGPL-3.0-only vs MPL-2.0

Can you use them, and where?

Side by side

AGPL-3.0-only

MPL-2.0