Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 29974 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2004 19:36:43 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2004 19:36:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 32519 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2004 19:36:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 32493 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2004 19:36:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 32457 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2004 19:36:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outmx004.isp.belgacom.be) (195.238.2.101) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2004 19:36:30 -0000 Received: from litrik.com (220-180.241.81.adsl.skynet.be [81.241.180.220]) by outmx004.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.9/8.12.9/Skynet-OUT-2.21) with ESMTP id i2CJaXXJ014700 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:36:33 +0100 (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <40521138.4090501@litrik.com> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:36:24 +0100 From: Litrik De Roy User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Using Maven (or something similar) for dependencies? (Was: Co coon's Rhino+continuations fork) References: <31DF72A980E5D511B48C000102BD8685061DB29A@calexc01.diginsite.com> In-Reply-To: <31DF72A980E5D511B48C000102BD8685061DB29A@calexc01.diginsite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.3(snapshot 20030212) (outmx004.isp.belgacom.be) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ralph Goers wrote: >... >And although Rhino isn't GPL, from what I read of the Mozilla license it >also has the requirement that anything that it is packaged with must also be >under the Mozilla license, which makes it just as bad as the GPL from a >commercial standpoint. >... > >Ralph > > Hum.... that's the same impression I got after reading the responses on this list by some of the Mozilla people. But there seems to be a difference in the MPL (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html) between modifying source code and using the executable in a larger piece of software. When you modify the source code 3.1 clearly states that these modifications should be MPL as well: "The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License". But when you simply use the executable version of MPL code in a larger piece of software 3.7 says the following: "You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code." Note that the end of the line says "Covered Code" and not "Larger Work". So the "Covered Code" that is MPL, stays MPL. But anything surrounding it ("Larger Work") does *not* automatically become MPL as well . This is (IMHO) the difference with GPL. But IANAL... -- Litrik De Roy www.litrik.com