On 29.11.2011 13:08, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Andre Fischer<a...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
Hi all,
I need advice regarding license headers.
The upgrade of rhino to version 1.7 will integrate a file
(OfficeScriptInfo.java) that previously existed only in a patch that was
applied to version 1.5 source code before building. This file still has the
old license. The patch file itself is part of the SGA.
So the entire OfficeScriptInfo.java was included in a patch, and that
patch was included in the SGA? If that is true, then I believe we may
update the license header in the source file.
Think of it this way: The SGA is what puts these files under ALv2.
Updating the license header is how we document this fact, so it is
clear to downstream consumers exactly what files are under ALv2.
Good, I was hoping for this answer.
And I have another question. Can/should we download the source or even
the binaries (keep in mind that rhino is a Java library, so the binary
is a JAR file) directly from the mozilla servers or should we update the
rhino tar ball in ext_sources?
Regards,
Andre
-Rob
My question is how to handle this file? Change the license on my own? Ask
Andrew Rist to do it?
Regards,
Andre
On 25.11.2011 15:44, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
Hi Andre,
2011/11/25 Andre Fischer<a...@a-w-f.de>:
Hi Tsutomu,
On 25.11.2011 13:08, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
Hi Andre,
Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro. But it is
clear
now.
I have already reopned the issue.
Ah, very good :-)
Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add configure
options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
I can do that if you like. There are a number of libraries that have to
get
a special treatment, not just rhino. I will start to work on that, as
soon
the category-x code is removed.
Thank you for your work. I think I can do it in short time, my
knowledge about the building process is not enough for the task.
Regards,
Andre
Regards,
Tsutomu
