If Oculus doesn't mind relicensing, then this whole discussion is moot, right? So find that out ASAP.
Nick On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@hsivonen.fi> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Vladimir Vukicevic <vladim...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 1. Check in the LibOVR sources as-is, in other-licenses/oculus. Add a >> configure flag, maybe --disable-non-free, that disables building it. Build >> and ship it as normal in our builds. > > I think this would > a) set a terrible precedent that companies that do something > sufficiently cool can get Mozilla to add their non-Free code to > Firefox > b) lessen Oculus' incentive to work with us on option #2 below. > > So I'm opposed to this. > >> 2. Contact Oculus with our concerns about the license, and see if they would >> be willing to relicense to something more standard. > > I think we should pursue this. > >> The MPL might actually fit their needs pretty well > > Yes. Also worth noting about the special health-related limitation: > Sun had an anti-nuclear facility restriction in its Java license for > years. Yet, the sky did not fall when Sun relicensed Java under GPLv2, > which doesn't have field-of-use restrictions. > >> Any objections to the above, or alternative suggestions? This is a >> departure in our current license policy, but not a huge one. > > How is turning Firefox into non-Free software not a huge departure? > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivo...@hsivonen.fi > https://hsivonen.fi/ > _______________________________________________ > 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
