I think you misunderstood what “viral” mean in that context.
If a file, under GPL, is added to a project, the whole project becomes dual licensed under the original licence plus GPL, which propagate to the whole project, like a virus. I know comparing it to something like a virus sound derogative, but this is the best way to describe its effect.
If a file, under MPL, is added to a project, the project do not become MPL, only the added part is. Said project cannot change the MPL licensed part to another licence, but still can build anything it wish using it.
Globally, a GPL licensed project protects the user more, but also prevent the devs from doing a lot of thing, which MPL does not.
In the end, this is the devs freedom to chose which licence they wish to publish their code under, not ours.
That sounds like exactly what I meant; where the GPL is viral on the project level, MPL is viral on the file level. So if code, under MPL, is added to a file, that whole code becomes MPL.
I think you misunderstood what “viral” mean in that context.
If a file, under GPL, is added to a project, the whole project becomes dual licensed under the original licence plus GPL, which propagate to the whole project, like a virus. I know comparing it to something like a virus sound derogative, but this is the best way to describe its effect.
If a file, under MPL, is added to a project, the project do not become MPL, only the added part is. Said project cannot change the MPL licensed part to another licence, but still can build anything it wish using it.
Globally, a GPL licensed project protects the user more, but also prevent the devs from doing a lot of thing, which MPL does not.
In the end, this is the devs freedom to chose which licence they wish to publish their code under, not ours.
That sounds like exactly what I meant; where the GPL is viral on the project level, MPL is viral on the file level. So if code, under MPL, is added to a file, that whole code becomes MPL.