On Apr 8, 6:39 am, Hannes Wallnoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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_codehttp://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/Abstract...http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/JTreeTab...http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/TreeTabl...http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/TreeTabl... > > 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 > athttp://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
Excellent! I was quickly able to make these files run with Rhino, so no technical issues. I'll follow up with mozilla.org and see if it is possible to include the source in CVS and distribute with Rhino. The license seems liberal enough that I'm hopeful, but I know these things can be complicated. --N _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
