- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:42:26 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
On Friday 2009-06-26 11:27 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Note that mozilla has since long made a commitment not to ship code > that is not compatible with all of GPL, LGPL *and* MPL. So unless the > BDB license is compatible with all those three we couldn't use BDB. I think our (Mozilla's) requirement is actually slightly stronger than license compatibility, at least as defined by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility . Rather, I think we require that the licenses don't impose any restrictions in addition to those imposed by the MPL, the LGPL, or the GPL. (In other words, that the license is less restrictive than *each* of those licenses.) For what it's worth, the license document in question, located at http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/htdocs/oslicense.html appears to suggest that the files in the source code are covered under three different licenses (although it's not entirely clear to me what is meant by the concatenation of three licenses, my initial guess is that it means different parts are covered under different licenses). The second and third given appear to me to be the three-part BSD license (varying by whether the copyright holder is the UC Regents or Harvard University). If my quick glance is correct and this is identical to the three-part BSD license, then I suspect the second and third licenses are unlikely to be a problem for Mozilla; we already include code licensed under the three-part BSD license (see http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php ). The first license, on the other hand, appears to be a modified version of the BSD license, with the third claused replaced by an entirely different one. I don't recognize this clause, and I suspect it would require legal analysis to determine whether it's less restrictive than the MPL, LGPL, and GPL. (Though the part that says "For an executable file, complete source code means the source code for all modules it contains." seems pretty restrictive to my untrained eyes.) -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 19:43:10 UTC