Henri Sivonen wrote:
I am curious why Rhino is under an MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0 dual license as
opposed to the tri-license.
Because it was not part of Mozilla at the time of relicensing, and so
specifically excluded from the relicensing process. It has historically
been NPL/GPL.
When it was NPL/GPL, a bug was opened about making it BSD to be
compatible with the Apache license.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236108
In the end, Apache agreed the MPL was compatible, and so we changed to
MPL/GPL, because this didn't require getting additional permissions.
There's a large body of very useful Apache-licensed Java source out
there, so non-trivial Java apps are likely to use some. Since the Apache
licenses and GPLv2 are deemed incompatible by the FSF, the GPL option
effectively vanishes leaving only MPL 1.1. And MPL is known to be a
problem if one wants to get code in Debian...
<sigh>
Are there any plans to add the LGPL option to Rhino? (If GPLv3 indeed
ends up being Apache License 2.0-compatible, the GPLv2 "or later"
language will take care of this with time assuming that Debian approves
of GPLv3.)
No plans; it would require contacting all the copyright holders who have
not already been contacted about the relicensing project. (Although
Rhino was excluded from the initial relicensing, the permission given
was general enough to apply to Rhino.)
BSDing it would require contacting all contributors, without exception.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
