You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch> on 2006/11/05 12:31:10 UTC
Re: Rhino (once more)
FYI, Cameron McCormack (Batik) has asked the Rhino team about
relicensing Rhino under the MPL:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine/browse_thread/thread/012b1279e97d1f8a/76511e91e6263eca#dcb9a0e6ee1eaed1
On 27.10.2006 14:44:52 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:
> <c5...@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
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> AFAIK these features were never explicitely mentioned in our docs, so
>> not official, and thus certainly not widely used. It may be worth it to
>> be legally clean at the price of very few compatibility problems.
>>
> Yepp, I think being legally clean is more important here.
> If we don't go this way, we have to find a way to support the old
> version without *ever* going into legal problems (e.g. by separating
> flow from the core in 2.1.x and make it available separately etc.) This
> would cause pain to *all* Cocoon users.
>
Exactly!
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
> AFAIK these features were never explicitely mentioned in our docs, so
> not official, and thus certainly not widely used. It may be worth it to
> be legally clean at the price of very few compatibility problems.
>
Yepp, I think being legally clean is more important here.
If we don't go this way, we have to find a way to support the old
version without *ever* going into legal problems (e.g. by separating
flow from the core in 2.1.x and make it available separately etc.) This
would cause pain to *all* Cocoon users.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Chief Architect
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On 11/16/06, Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...It may be worth it to
> be legally clean at the price of very few compatibility problems...
+1
-Bertrand
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Jeremy Quinn <je...@apache.org>.
On 17 Nov 2006, at 23:03, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Jeremy Quinn wrote:
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2006, at 09:40, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>
>>>> a vote ;-)
>>>> IIRC Rhino 1.6 is binary compatible to the version we use in 2.1
>>>
>>> Not totally. The exception and stacktrace handling code is a bit
>>> different, but source compatible (see LocationTrackingDebugger).
>>
>> Loosing the LocationTrackingDebugger would be a real loss :-{}
>
> Oh don't worry, it won't be lost, definitely not! It's just that
> switching the Rhino version is not just about dropping the new jar,
> but
> requires to recompile Cocoon's source code.
Phew !!
;-)
regards Jeremy
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Jeremy Quinn wrote:
>
> On 16 Nov 2006, at 09:40, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>>> a vote ;-)
>>> IIRC Rhino 1.6 is binary compatible to the version we use in 2.1
>>
>> Not totally. The exception and stacktrace handling code is a bit
>> different, but source compatible (see LocationTrackingDebugger).
>
> Loosing the LocationTrackingDebugger would be a real loss :-{}
Oh don't worry, it won't be lost, definitely not! It's just that
switching the Rhino version is not just about dropping the new jar, but
requires to recompile Cocoon's source code.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Jeremy Quinn <je...@apache.org>.
On 16 Nov 2006, at 09:40, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>> a vote ;-)
>> IIRC Rhino 1.6 is binary compatible to the version we use in 2.1
>
> Not totally. The exception and stacktrace handling code is a bit
> different, but source compatible (see LocationTrackingDebugger).
Loosing the LocationTrackingDebugger would be a real loss :-{}
regards Jeremy
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>> Nice,
>>
>> to avoid all legal problems - what would it take to use this version in
>> 2.1.x?
>
> a vote ;-)
> IIRC Rhino 1.6 is binary compatible to the version we use in 2.1
Not totally. The exception and stacktrace handling code is a bit
different, but source compatible (see LocationTrackingDebugger).
>> I know that this might introduce some incompatibilities, but
>> perhaps we can live with them?
>
> not sure, see
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=109528520325331&w=2
> I remember some users using these features.
AFAIK these features were never explicitely mentioned in our docs, so
not official, and thus certainly not widely used. It may be worth it to
be legally clean at the price of very few compatibility problems.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Yes, and that's exactly the question, if we want go this road. Now if
> people are upgrading to 2.2 in the future they have to live with these
> changes anyway.
Right, but there is a difference between doing an upgrade from one patch release
to another or to a new minor version.
--
Reinhard
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>> Nice,
>>
>> to avoid all legal problems - what would it take to use this version in
>> 2.1.x?
>
> a vote ;-)
Ah, right, thanks :)
> IIRC Rhino 1.6 is binary compatible to the version we use in 2.1
Hmm, I'm not sure - I think we had to change some parts in the
interpreter, but I might be wrong.
>
>> I know that this might introduce some incompatibilities, but
>> perhaps we can live with them?
>
> not sure, see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=109528520325331&w=2
> I remember some users using these features.
>
Yes, and that's exactly the question, if we want go this road. Now if
people are upgrading to 2.2 in the future they have to live with these
changes anyway.
WDAT?
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Chief Architect
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Nice,
>
> to avoid all legal problems - what would it take to use this version in
> 2.1.x?
a vote ;-)
IIRC Rhino 1.6 is binary compatible to the version we use in 2.1
> I know that this might introduce some incompatibilities, but
> perhaps we can live with them?
not sure, see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=109528520325331&w=2
I remember some users using these features.
--
Reinhard
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Nice,
to avoid all legal problems - what would it take to use this version in
2.1.x? I know that this might introduce some incompatibilities, but
perhaps we can live with them?
Carsten
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On 11/5/06, Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch> wrote:
>> FYI, Cameron McCormack (Batik) has asked the Rhino team about
>> relicensing Rhino under the MPL:
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine/browse_thread/thread/012b1279e97d1f8a/76511e91e6263eca#dcb9a0e6ee1eaed1
>
> And it has happened!! As of Rhino 1.6R5, it will be dual-licensed MPL/GPL.
>
> See also http://constc.blogspot.com/2006/11/rhino-relicensed-under-mplgpl.html
>
> Congratulations and big thanks to everyone involved!
> -Bertrand
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Chief Architect
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Rhino (once more)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On 11/5/06, Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch> wrote:
> FYI, Cameron McCormack (Batik) has asked the Rhino team about
> relicensing Rhino under the MPL:
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine/browse_thread/thread/012b1279e97d1f8a/76511e91e6263eca#dcb9a0e6ee1eaed1
And it has happened!! As of Rhino 1.6R5, it will be dual-licensed MPL/GPL.
See also http://constc.blogspot.com/2006/11/rhino-relicensed-under-mplgpl.html
Congratulations and big thanks to everyone involved!
-Bertrand