On Apr 8, 9:17 am, Norris Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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_code...... > > > 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
Good news! It's okay to use files with this license, so I've committed the changes to CVS. Thanks, Hannes, for spotting this--it makes life easier for everyone! --N _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
