Re: Proposed policy change: permit use of LGPLed libraries

On 29/05/12 05:48, Mook wrote:
> Sorry, I thought that just meant "lives in /other-licenses or similar";

/other-licenses is deprecated; people keep sticking stuff in there that
shouldn't be there even under its original purpose. "LGPL" is a bit more
in line with what it was originally intended for, but at this point I'm
not convinced of the value of putting code somewhere away from code it's
related to in order to make a licensing point.

> 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.)

Thanks for bringing up this point; we will make sure that it's clear
that this needs to be done.

Gerv