On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:31 PM, mhoye <mh...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Well, more than a day or two. The MIT license is fine to include, and we > have a pile of MIT-licensed code in-tree already. > > Other already-in-tree MPL-2.0 compatible licenses - the "just do it" set, > basically - include Apache 2.0, BSD 2- and 3-clause, LGPL 2.1 and 3.0, GPL > 3.0 and the Unicode Consortium's ICU.
Does "just do it" imply that it's now OK to import that stuff without an analog of the previous r+ from Gerv? > For anything not on that list a legal bug is def. the next step. For test files, i.e. stuff that doesn't get linked into libxul, we also have precedent for the MPL-incompatible CC-by and CC-by-sa. I hope we can add these to the above list. On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > The above list is for tests. For things that go in Firefox, it's more > complicated. LGPL have requirements that makes us have to put all LGPL > libraries in a separate dynamic library (liblgpllibs), and GPL can't be > used at all. For stuff that goes into Firefox, MIT and BSD (and, I'm guessing, Apache with NOTICE file) involve editing https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/content/license.html , too. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
