Gervase Markham wrote:
What do you think the license says? :-)
Gerv
Gerv,
Thanks for the response. I apologize for being a bit vague with my
earlier post.
The whole situation is this:
My company and our attorneys have read over the licenses and believe
that the product I described is a larger work. We have included the
license and a link to the Rhino source code in our documentation. We
are comfortable with our implementation and the way we have followed the
MPL/NPL licenses. However, the problem is that we have a partner which
may resell the product. They have a legal policy which is risk averse
and they believe that Rhino is "viral" and may put their proprietary
source code at risk, although their software will not even directly
communicate with the Rhino .jar at all (only through our product via
HTTP).
So now we are doing whatever we can to reassure them that their code is
not at risk (nor ours for that matter). I've seen some other threads
where responses from Mozilla or Netscape people have said that based on
the descriptions provided in a post, there are no claims on their code.
Can you make a similar assessment, given these facts:
*Our product makes function calls to Rhino's standard library through
Rhino's standard API
*Our product and Rhino are written in separate source files
*Our product and Rhino run in separate executable files that are linked
at run-time
*We have made no changes to the Rhino code, library or API
Thanks for any help you can provide.
