Vlad asked a specific question in the first email. Are we comfortable using another open (albeit not open enough for MPL) license on trunk while we rewrite the library? Can we compromise on trunk in order to innovate faster and only ship to GA once the code is MPL friendly via re-licensing or re-writing? What is our view on this narrow question?
Andreas On Apr 14, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic <vladim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ralph Giles wrote: >>> The goal would be to remove LibOVR before we ship (or keep it in assuming >>> it gets relicensed, if appropriate), and replace it with a standard "Open >>> VR" library. >> >> Can you dlopen the sdk, so it doesn't have to be in-tree? That still >> leaves the problem of how to get it on a user's system, but perhaps an >> add-on can do that part while the interface code in is-tree. > > Unfortunately, no -- the interface is all C++, and the headers are licensed > under the same license. A C layer could be written, but then we're back to > having to ship it separately via addon or plugin anyway. > >> Finally, did you see Gerv's post at >> >> http://blog.gerv.net/2014/03/mozilla-and-proprietary-software/ > > Yes -- perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with Gerv on some of the > particulars here. Gerv's opinions are his own, and are not official Mozilla > policy. That post I'm sure came out of a discussion regarding this very > issue here. In particular, my stance is that we build open source software > because we believe there is value in that, and that it is the best way to > build innovative, secure, and meaningful software. We don't build open > source software for the sake of building open source. > > - Vlad > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
