On 2014-04-14 3:41 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote: > 2. Contact Oculus with our concerns about the license, and see if they would be willing to relicense to something more standard.
We should certainly ask, and explain what the problem is for us. > The goal would be to remove LibOVR before we ship (or keep it in assuming it > gets relicensed, if appropriate), and replace it with a standard "Open VR" > library. Can you dlopen the sdk, so it doesn't have to be in-tree? That still leaves the problem of how to get it on a user's system, but perhaps an add-on can do that part while the interface code in is-tree. Finally, did you see Gerv's post at http://blog.gerv.net/2014/03/mozilla-and-proprietary-software/ -r _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
