On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > The MIT license is equivalent to the standard no-advertising-clause BSD > license that we use in WebKit. It would be acceptable.
For future reference-- While we're on the topic, is the Apache 1.1 license also acceptable for such purposes? I recently came across a third-party module with that license. http://www.apache.org/licenses/ It also has no advertising clause and is similar to BSD (but possibly not similar enough). --Chris > On Jan 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, David Levin wrote: > > I didn't see a web page about it, but when you submit a patch, every single > bullet mentions only BSD or LGPL 2.1 is accepted. > > If you are sending in a patch to existing WebKit code, you agree by clicking > below that your changes are licensed under the existing license terms of the > file you are modifying (i.e., BSD license or GNU Lesser General Public > License v.2.1, LGPL v. 2.1). Please also add your copyright (name and year) > to the relevant files for changes that are more than 10 lines of code. > If you are sending in a new file for inclusion in WebKit (no code copied > from another source), the preferred license is BSD, but LGPL 2.1 is an > option as well. Please include your copyright (name and year) and license > preference (BSD or LGPL 2.1). By clicking below you agree that your file is > licensed under either the BSD license or LGPL 2.1, as indicated in your > file. > If you aren't the author of the patch, you agree to include the original > copyright notices and licensing terms with it, to the extent that they > exist. If there wasn't a copyright notice or license, please make a note of > it. Generally we can only take in patches that are BSD- or LGPL-licensed in > order to maintain license compatibility within the project. _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
