On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 01:31:43PM -0400, mhoye wrote: > On 2018-04-24 10:36 AM, mhoye wrote: > > On 2018-04-24 10:24 AM, David Teller wrote: > > > What's our policy for this? Are there any restrictions? All the > > > frameworks I currently have at hand are have either an MIT- or an > > > MIT-like license, so in theory, we need to copy the license somewhere in > > > the test repo, right? > > > > I think that this is my question to answer now; I've taken on licensing > > questions in Gerv's absence. I'm new to this part of the job, so it'll > > take me a day or two to get the answer; I'll come back to this thread > > when I have it. > > Well, more than a day or two. The MIT license is fine to include, and we > have a pile of MIT-licensed code in-tree already. > > Other already-in-tree MPL-2.0 compatible licenses - the "just do it" set, > basically - include Apache 2.0, BSD 2- and 3-clause, LGPL 2.1 and 3.0, GPL > 3.0 and the Unicode Consortium's ICU.
The above list is for tests. For things that go in Firefox, it's more complicated. LGPL have requirements that makes us have to put all LGPL libraries in a separate dynamic library (liblgpllibs), and GPL can't be used at all. Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
