FYI, Cameron McCormack (Batik) has asked the Rhino team about relicensing Rhino under the MPL: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine/browse_thread/thread/012b1279e97d1f8a/76511e91e6263eca#dcb9a0e6ee1eaed1
On 27.10.2006 14:44:52 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Hi Cocooners > > Before I start: Sorry to be a PITA to bring up Rhino again. ;-) > > Batik is starting to plan a new release and Rhino popped up in the back > of my mind. I went looking in your codebase to see what you did with > Rhino since I last checked. Turns out that Cocoon still lists Rhino as > under the MPL 1.1 in both Trunk and the 2.1.x branch. And that's clearly > wrong: > http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/download.html > http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js/rhino/src/org/mozilla/javascript/Script.java > > And as you know this whole thing is further complicated by the fact that > the NPL is currently de-facto an excluded license which means that > neither Cocoon nor Batik are allowed to distribute or simply download > (through Maven without alerting the user) Rhino. > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition-examples-npl > > Means both our projects would actually have to remove Rhino and make > sure they run without it. > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options > > Cliff wrote about certain options in March on legal-discuss (Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>). Nobody > followed up on that. And it looks like both our projects have ignored > the third-party licence policy so far concerning this issue. Any ideas > how to proceed? Shall we raise it again on legal-discuss? Has there been > any progress in trying to convinve the Rhino project to switch to the > MPL? > > Jeremias Maerki Jeremias Maerki
