Re: Proposed policy change: permit use of LGPLed libraries

On 5/28/2012 2:29 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 27/05/12 02:52, Mook wrote:
>> Will the LGPL code be limited to be outside of libxul?
>
> I guess I had assumed that "clearly-demarcated 3rd-party LGPLed
> libraries" meant that the library had to be a standalone lib which was
> dynamically linked in, such that LGPLness did not affect any non-LGPLed
> code. But in hindsight, perhaps that wasn't clear.

Sorry, I thought that just meant "lives in /other-licenses or similar"; 
I had not initially interpreted it as "guaranteed to never live in the 
same binary as the MPL code".  If there's non-code restrictions in place 
to keep the LGPL bits in separate binaries, it should be fine. 
(Actually, I guess a libmozlgpl would be fine too, assuming that 
satisfies the LGPL license enough.)

> Clarification: it would mean we'd need to obey the terms of the LGPL in
> terms of the particular ways one makes source available etc. for all
> code inside libxul. It wouldn't mean we'd need to change the licence of
> the source code or their headers, because MPL2 is upwardly compatible
> with LGPL. But I agree, we don't want to be in that place.

Yep, that was only in the context of making the MPL-only-binary option 
unavailable; at that point the code might as well have been LGPL-only 
(with its automatic GPL option) instead, since it wouldn't actually 
build.  But it sounds like this wouldn't be an issue anyway.

-- 
Mook