Currently it's MPL1.1 tri-licensed. We're the effective maintainers (Cisco opened it but does not provide or take updates). Since (per Gerv) MPL2 is compatible with MPL1.1 tri-licensed files, we should do a mass-update to MPL2. [16:03] gerv (The MPL 1.1 has an upgrade clause in it, [16:04] gerv so anyone can take something under the MPL 1.1+ and make their copy under the MPL 2+. [16:04] gerv (Plain MPL 2+ if it was tri-licensed originally, MPL2+ with GPL Incompatibility Clause if it was MPL 1.1-only originally.
If we are the maintainers, it seems fine to me for us to switch to MPL 2 and get the benefits that license provides. You can commit it and get me to run my script over it, or you can run it yourself if you are feeling brave (http://hg.mozilla.org/users/gerv_mozilla.org/relic/) or you can do it by hand if there's only a few files. Gerv
I'm not sure the statements that Cisco does not provide or take updates it correct. So the fact is that so far so updates and have been provided or taken but Cisco does fully intent to take and provide updates. Keep in mind this source code is shipping in lots of Cisco products and we find bugs, get cert advisories, etc. For stuff that is important, particularly security related, we would like to be able to easily provide updates to firefox. Similarly, when bugs are found in firefox we want to get them fixed in our products too. I would appreciate it if someone familiar with all the license implications could get on the phone with me (and perhaps the Cisco open source licensing people in legal) and walk us through the implications of this change before it happens.
(In reply to Cullen Jennings from comment #2) PS - ... and just for context of the above comment for folks that don't know me. I am a Cisco employee and can represent Cisco's position on this type of stuff.
Sure :-) I'm the guy on the Mozilla side. I had the impression that Cisco had limited further interest in this code and no interest in being an upstream; if that's different, of course that changes things. Why don't we start with a call with just you and me, and we can bring in your licensing team if you think it's necessary. I'm on UK time; what timezone are you in? Gerv
Thanks Gerv - I'll send you some email and sort out a time - I'm Canada west.
Gerv walked me through the implications of this change and I've discussed it with some legal folks at Cisco. We don't see this changing our ability to use changes from this code in our products or change us providing code back into the open source. We are happy to see it proceed. Thanks you Gerv for walking us through this.
OK. I have a script which does this relicensing or adds license headers to files without them. So, probably the easiest thing is for you to commit to mozilla-central and then I'll run the script over the directory. Does the code currently have tri-license headers? Or nothing? Gerv
It has tri-license headers, and it's now in m-c and has been uplifted to Aurora
OK. I'll add it to my list of things to do. I'll assume it's just the directory media/webrtc/signaling unless you say otherwise. Gerv
Assignee: nobody → gerv
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Checked in: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/8524374bf17b Gerv
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla19
Whiteboard: [WebRTC], [blocking-webrtc-] → [WebRTC], [blocking-webrtc-], [qa-]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.