On 17/06/13 10:58, Chris Newman wrote: > I think these would be good usability issues to address. When I > contributed that code, I was a Sun Microsystems employee and Sun was an > NSS contributor. However, I can not maintain or update that code as my > present employer does not have a code contribution agreement with > Mozilla to my knowledge.
Almost no-one has code contribution agreements with Mozilla. It of course depends on your contract with your employer but if you make changes on your own time, they are yours to contribute. If you wish to contribute changes made on your employer's time, all you have to do is get them to OK it. > I'll mention one other usability issue. I am getting pressure from my > employer to stop using NSS due to the MPL 2 license. I got less pressure > when I could use NSS under the LGPL 2.1 branch of the tri-license. > Switching to OpenSSL has been suggested. It seems like someone at your employer is a bit misled. I'd be happy to engage in a conversation about the MPL, the LGPL etc. - just get them to contact me. It would help to know what it is about the MPL 2 that they find objectionable. NSS, or any piece of code under the MPL 2, can be used under LGPL terms when made part of a larger work which uses the LGPL. However, changes you make have to be dual-licensed. The answer here is relevant: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#mpl-and-lgpl If the larger work is proprietary, or under some other non-GPL/LGPL licence, you may _not_ simply choose to take the code under LGPL terms. But again, it would be helpful to understand why you would even want to. Gerv -- dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
