I was looking at how to solve the licensing issues that cause the rhino debugger not to be included by default in 1.7R1, and made an interesting find. Looking at the example page for the code in question, the unzipped java files actually contain a different license notice than the ones in the zipped archive, and it looks very much like a BSD license (without the old advertising clause):
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/#source_code http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/AbstractCellEditor.java http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/JTreeTable1.java http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/TreeTableModel.java http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/TreeTableModelAdapter.java Strangely, the files in the zip file downloaded by the debugger ant script uses a different license notice. My guess is that it just wasn't updated when the license was changed (it actually isn't linked on the example page). Now I'm no licensing expert, but a look at http://wiki.mozilla.org/License_Policy and some googling around suggests that this would allow us to actually import these files in Rhino CVS as third party code. Am I wrong? hannes _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
