About mozjs24 being built

[Joshua Root]

On 2016-4-4 00:45 , Clemens Lang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 04:05:02PM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
>> Doesn't seem like it will:
>>
>> $ port_binary_distributable.tcl -v mozjs24
>> "mozjs24" is not distributable because its license "mpl" conflicts with license "GPL-3+" of dependency "gdbm"
>
> Actually, mozjs24's license is MPL-2.0, which is -- according to the
> FSF's interpretation of things [1] -- compatible with GPL-3. Our license
> check tooling, however, explicitly marks all MPL licenses as
> incompatible with all GPL licenses [2]. I think that's a bug.
>
> The GPL <-> MPL conflict was already there in the inital script
> committed 5 years ago by Josh [3]. Josh, do you agree this is a bug?
>
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#MPL-2.0
> [2] https://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/base/portmgr/jobs/port_binary_distributable.tcl?marks=91#L85
> [3] https://trac.macports.org/changeset/75780

MPL 2.0 is GPL compatible only by way of an optional clause that allows 
relicensing under the GPL. Some software is under MPL-2 but has an 
"Incompatible With Secondary Licenses" notice. If a port uses the 
version of MPL-2 that does allow the relicensing then its license should 
be listed as {MPL-2 LGPL-2.1+}. (You could list GPL-2+ and AGPL-3+ in 
there too but it makes no practical difference.)

Older MPL versions were also GPL incompatible, although software using 
them was often explicitly dual-licensed.

- Josh