On 2014-04-14, 9:47 PM, Andreas Gal wrote:
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?
The idea that we will only "ship to GA once the code is MPL friendly via
re-licensing or re-writing" sounds tricky in practice. If including
libovr has value, the incentive will be to ship, regardless of license.
(Personally, I am a VR skeptic.) We could view this as an experiment:
include libovr until it's dead weight or proven to be valuable enough to
demand the resources to re-write it for GA.
We want to move faster and experiment more freely, and in tree has huge
developer benefits, so my first impression is to include it, but I have
a question. vlad said:
> 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 somebody save me some license reading and explain what the existing
framework around shipping libovr is? Is it explicitly allowed?
Explicitly dis-allowed? If I read gerv's post [1] correctly, it is
allowed, but it's hard to distinguish gerv's opinion from Mozilla legal's.
Nick
[1] http://blog.gerv.net/2014/03/mozilla-and-proprietary-software/, in
particular section 1B.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
