Ross Gardler wrote: > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > >Ross Gardler escribi??: > >> > >>With respect to reusing the search definition code. > >> > >>- What license is the definition schema released as? > > > >Not found any information on it but it seems an internal mozilla format > >and mozilla is ASF style license, right? > > I always thought so, but I have an inkling that it was listed as a > non-compatible license in the recent legal FAQ. I've not verified this > (possibly incorret) rcollection.
No, MPL is not "ASF-style". That "FAQ" document is not yet public, though Forrest and other committers have had a preliminary look at it. It is coming to the legal-discuss mail list soon. ASF committers can join, others can read the public mail archives. http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal I am not going to say anything to pre-empt that FAQ. Back to the search definitions ... Are those definitions actually licensed? You will need to find out if you want to propose their direct inclusion in Forrest. -David > >>We need to consider > >>reuse of the schema as well as the individual definitions. > > > >I would like to go one step further and try to start a discussion on > >mozilla to use a xml valid format instead of the halfbaked xml like > >format that they have right now. > > > >To re-use the existing mozilla *out-of-the-box" would be more then > >awesome. :) > > If you ave the time for another list ;-) > > Ross >
