Sorry for the confusion of my response.
The question was about having dependencies from Felix (subproject) code
to MPL or CPL licensed code.
My response was intended to mean that Apache legal says that it is ok to
have binary MPL or CPL products in our releases, but not source versions
of them.
This is an Apache issue, not a general open source issue. The source use
of these licenses requires some degree of reciprocity, which is why they
cannot be included in Apache releases.
-> richard
Rob Walker wrote:
Not sure I agree with that view personally:
CPL is definitely a license which includes source use - it's our base
license for open source work.
Also, would be rather odd if they didn't allow source use since I was
under impression that both are on the list of approved open source
licenses:
http://opensource.org/
But then IA-D-NAL .... D = definitely!
- R
Richard S. Hall wrote:
By the looks of it from this link:
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
Both MPL and CPL are binary only licenses. So, we cannot include the
source in our releases, but can include binaries...if I understand it
correctly.
-> richard
Manuel Santillan wrote:
Hi all,
IANAL, o I'm a bit confused about licenses. Is it possible to commit
code that depends on MPL'd code(Mozilla license)? What about
dependencies on CPL'd code?
Thanx!!
//manuel
