cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <Ralph.Go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Rhino (once more)
Date Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:11:24 GMT
This may not be too big a deal for Cocoon trunk.  So long as flowscript 
is an optional part of Cocoon I believe we are OK.  However, it probably 
also means that while other blocks can take advantage of flowscript they 
shouldn't rely on it.

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Hi Cocooners
>
> Before I start: Sorry to be a PITA to bring up Rhino again. ;-)
>
> Batik is starting to plan a new release and Rhino popped up in the back
> of my mind. I went looking in your codebase to see what you did with
> Rhino since I last checked. Turns out that Cocoon still lists Rhino as
> under the MPL 1.1 in both Trunk and the 2.1.x branch. And that's clearly
> wrong:
> http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/download.html
> http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js/rhino/src/org/mozilla/javascript/Script.java
>
> And as you know this whole thing is further complicated by the fact that
> the NPL is currently de-facto an excluded license which means that
> neither Cocoon nor Batik are allowed to distribute or simply download 
> (through Maven without alerting the user) Rhino.
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition-examples-npl
>
> Means both our projects would actually have to remove Rhino and make
> sure they run without it.
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options
>
> Cliff wrote about certain options in March on legal-discuss (Message-ID:
> <c5e632550603241427y1e563dbdh9b0507a7ddfe9b5a@mail.gmail.com>). Nobody
> followed up on that. And it looks like both our projects have ignored
> the third-party licence policy so far concerning this issue. Any ideas
> how to proceed? Shall we raise it again on legal-discuss? Has there been
> any progress in trying to convinve the Rhino project to switch to the
> MPL?
>
> Jeremias Maerki
>
>   

Mime
View raw message