Questions About MPL 2.0 Source Availability for a Modified Collabora Online Web UI

Development
1

Hello,

I have some questions about complying with the MPL 2.0 when using a modified version of Collabora Online based on coolwsd.

The modifications are primarily to files delivered to the end user’s web browser. They include:

  • Changes to UI translations and localization strings

  • Changes to text displayed in the About dialog

  • Hiding certain items in the classic menu and ribbon/notebookbar UI

  • Changes to product names and branding-related text

  • Changes to JavaScript, TypeScript, HTML templates, and translation files that are executed or displayed in the browser

According to Mozilla’s MPL 2.0 FAQ, code that runs only on the server is generally not considered distributed to the user. However, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and similar files delivered to the user’s browser are considered distributed.

Based on this understanding, I plan to inform users how they can request the corresponding source code for the modified MPL-covered files and provide it by reasonable means in a timely manner.

I would appreciate clarification on the following questions:

  1. If a user requests the source code, would providing the modified source files as a ZIP archive by email or through a download link qualify as a “reasonable means” under MPL 2.0?

  2. Must the source code be continuously available in a public repository, or may it be kept private and provided as a ZIP archive or download link when a request is received?

  3. Would inviting a requester to a private Git repository be acceptable? Alternatively, is it recommended to provide the source without requiring the requester to create an account or accept a repository invitation?

  4. What source code should be provided?

    • Only a diff or patch against the official upstream source

    • The complete modified versions of the affected files, together with the exact upstream version or Git commit

    • The complete corresponding MPL-covered source tree for the distributed build

Since the original Collabora Online source code is already available in the official repository, would it be sufficient to provide the complete modified files together with a reference to the exact upstream version or commit?

  1. Would the following notice be appropriate?

    “This editor is based on Collabora Online, licensed under the Mozilla Public License 2.0, and includes modifications. The corresponding MPL-covered source code for this version is available upon request.”

The notice would also include an email address or a link through which users can request the source code. Is there any wording recommended by Collabora?

  1. Are there any trademark policies that should be considered when removing Collabora product names, logos, or other branding from the user interface of a modified build and replacing them with a different product name?

Existing copyright and MPL license notices in the source files will be preserved. The modified product will not be presented as an official Collabora product or as being endorsed by Collabora.

This is not a request for legal advice concerning a specific company or product. I am trying to understand the generally recommended approach for MPL 2.0 compliance when operating a modified Collabora Online build.

Any guidance, practical experience, or links to official Collabora documentation would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

2

I’ve not read this in detail - but this really does look like a request for free legal advice, which if answered would shifts legal risk onto someone else - while not only providing nothing back but also apparently asking for help to enable non-contribution in the future.

So I don’t believe anyone here, and certainly no-one from Collabora is going to answer this sort of question here.

I would strongly suggest that the best way to work with the project is to publish all of your source code modifications, in public, and (even better) to work together in public with our team to contribute to the common Collabora Office & Online code-bases whatever bits make sense. If this is your intention and track-record then - we are happy to provide design advice, and collaborate together to make the code better for everyone as we do for all contributors.

If you want a maintained, white-labelled version of COOL - that is also a commercial service that Collabora provides, please poke sales@collaboraoffice.com or if you insist seek legal advice from a paid (and ideally FLOSS-experienced professional).

I hope you decide to contribute :slight_smile:

Regards,

Michael.

1 Like
3

Thank you for your response. I understand your concerns.

My intention was not to request free legal advice for a specific organization or product, nor to transfer legal risk to members of the community. I was hoping to find out whether there were any existing public policies, documentation, or generally recommended project practices covering these questions.

I understand that case-specific compliance questions are not appropriate for the community forum. I will consider the public contribution approach you suggested, review Collabora’s commercial white-label offering, and seek advice from a FLOSS-experienced legal professional if necessary.

Thank you for clarifying the appropriate direction.

Collabora Online Weekly Meeting #270