{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreialaajmdvdhvmyi23wjcffjpobxq5gaaang3hxi774jh3tcodykfm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmsi3o3isqy2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33474&p=274744#p274744",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-27T01:51:26.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "tags": [
    "https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/",
    "https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/c ... l-and-gpl/"
  ],
  "textContent": "If you're combining LGPL'd portions into an MPL 2.0 licensed work, you should allow the MPL 2.0 work _in Source Code Form_ to be available under the LGPL too. This would only be possible if the MPL'd work isn't marked \"Incompatible With Secondary Licenses\" ~~, and the Executable Form (I guess the XPI-packaged result would be it?) isn't sublicensed under terms that limit or alter the recipients’ rights under the LGPL~~ (EDIT: I just realized that requirement is only for the source code).\nThese articles by Mozilla's licensing team might help:\n\nhttps://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ (question 14 is relevant)\nhttps://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/c ... l-and-gpl/\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Add-ons • Re: Theme licensing question",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-27T01:51:26.000Z"
}