Debugger license issues
Hannes Wallnoefer
rhino debugger not to be included by default in 1.7R1, and made an
interesting find. Looking at the example page for the code in
question, the unzipped java files actually contain a different license
notice than the ones in the zipped archive, and it looks very much
like a BSD license (without the old advertising clause):
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/#source_code
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/AbstractCellEditor.java
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/JTreeTable1.java
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/TreeTableModel.java
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/src/TreeTableModelAdapter.java
Strangely, the files in the zip file downloaded by the debugger ant
script uses a different license notice. My guess is that it just
wasn't updated when the license was changed (it actually isn't linked
on the example page).
Now I'm no licensing expert, but a look at http://wiki.mozilla.org/License_Policy
and some googling around suggests that this would allow us to actually
import these files in Rhino CVS as third party code. Am I wrong?
hannes
Norris Boyd
> I was looking at how to solve the licensing issues that cause the
> rhino debugger not to be included by default in 1.7R1, and made an
> interesting find. Looking at the example page for the code in
> question, the unzipped java files actually contain a different license
> notice than the ones in the zipped archive, and it looks very much
> like a BSD license (without the old advertising clause):
>
>
> Strangely, the files in the zip file downloaded by the debugger ant
> script uses a different license notice. My guess is that it just
> wasn't updated when the license was changed (it actually isn't linked
> on the example page).
>
> and some googling around suggests that this would allow us to actually
> import these files in Rhino CVS as third party code. Am I wrong?
>
> hannes
Excellent! I was quickly able to make these files run with Rhino, so
no technical issues.
I'll follow up with mozilla.org and see if it is possible to include
the source in CVS and distribute with Rhino. The license seems liberal
enough that I'm hopeful, but I know these things can be complicated.
--N
Norris Boyd
> On Apr 8, 6:39 am, Hannes Wallnoefer <hann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was looking at how to solve the licensing issues that cause the
> > rhino debugger not to be included by default in 1.7R1, and made an
> > interesting find. Looking at the example page for the code in
> > question, the unzipped java files actually contain a different license
> > notice than the ones in the zipped archive, and it looks very much
> > like a BSD license (without the old advertising clause):
>
>
> > Strangely, the files in the zip file downloaded by the debugger ant
> > script uses a different license notice. My guess is that it just
> > wasn't updated when the license was changed (it actually isn't linked
> > on the example page).
>
> > Now I'm no licensing expert, but a look athttp://wiki.mozilla.org/License_Policy
> > and some googling around suggests that this would allow us to actually
> > import these files in Rhino CVS as third party code. Am I wrong?
>
> > hannes
>
> Excellent! I was quickly able to make these files run with Rhino, so
> no technical issues.
>
> I'll follow up with mozilla.org and see if it is possible to include
> the source in CVS and distribute with Rhino. The license seems liberal
> enough that I'm hopeful, but I know these things can be complicated.
>
> --N
Good news! It's okay to use files with this license, so I've committed
the changes to CVS. Thanks, Hannes, for spotting this--it makes life
easier for everyone!
--N