Just to clarify: the issue with Rhino's license under MPL is that there's a wish to bundle it in a larger package (Shindig), which is distributed under the Apache license, correct?
I read http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b . Does that approach not work because you need something more than a binary inclusion of Rhino? I'd be happy to work to take patches back into Rhino so that Shindig could use a Rhino binary if that would help. Thanks, Norris On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:23 PM, John Hjelmstad <fa...@google.com> wrote: > +Norris Boyd, key author of Rhino, for comment. > > 2010/2/2 Paul Lindner <lind...@inuus.com> > > 2010/2/1 ๏̯͡๏ Jasvir Nagra <jas...@google.com> >> >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Tim Wintle <tim.win...@teamrubber.com >> >wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 07:10 -0800, Paul Lindner wrote: >> >> > Correct, it's included with yui and closure. John was asking if the >> >> > closure compiler could be used during runtime. That requires >> >> > redistributing rhino, etal which is problematic. >> >> >> >> Yup, I just meant to point out there is the same licensing issue with >> >> other javascript compressors (i.e. yui) as it's based off rhino too. >> >> >> > >> > Just to clarify, is the problem with redistributing rhino a question of >> the >> > MPL licence? Note that a slightly modified version of Rhino is >> > redistributed with Sun's Java 1.6 onwards. >> > >> >> >> MPL, while not optimal can be worked around with extra effort -- please >> see >> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b >> >> If we can confine rhino usage to build-time only I'd be happier so we can >> avoid any issues. We shipped a version of rhino for some time and got >> dinged for that in incubation. >> > >
