On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ralph Giles wrote: > > 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.
Unfortunately, no -- the interface is all C++, and the headers are licensed under the same license. A C layer could be written, but then we're back to having to ship it separately via addon or plugin anyway. > Finally, did you see Gerv's post at > > http://blog.gerv.net/2014/03/mozilla-and-proprietary-software/ Yes -- perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with Gerv on some of the particulars here. Gerv's opinions are his own, and are not official Mozilla policy. That post I'm sure came out of a discussion regarding this very issue here. In particular, my stance is that we build open source software because we believe there is value in that, and that it is the best way to build innovative, secure, and meaningful software. We don't build open source software for the sake of building open source. - Vlad _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
