On 5/28/2012 2:29 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 27/05/12 02:52, Mook wrote:
Will the LGPL code be limited to be outside of libxul?
I guess I had assumed that "clearly-demarcated 3rd-party LGPLed
libraries" meant that the library had to be a standalone lib which was
dynamically linked in, such that LGPLness did not affect any non-LGPLed
code. But in hindsight, perhaps that wasn't clear.
Sorry, I thought that just meant "lives in /other-licenses or similar";
I had not initially interpreted it as "guaranteed to never live in the
same binary as the MPL code". If there's non-code restrictions in place
to keep the LGPL bits in separate binaries, it should be fine.
(Actually, I guess a libmozlgpl would be fine too, assuming that
satisfies the LGPL license enough.)
Clarification: it would mean we'd need to obey the terms of the LGPL in
terms of the particular ways one makes source available etc. for all
code inside libxul. It wouldn't mean we'd need to change the licence of
the source code or their headers, because MPL2 is upwardly compatible
with LGPL. But I agree, we don't want to be in that place.
Yep, that was only in the context of making the MPL-only-binary option
unavailable; at that point the code might as well have been LGPL-only
(with its automatic GPL option) instead, since it wouldn't actually
build. But it sounds like this wouldn't be an issue anyway.
--
Mook
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
