About mozjs24 being built

[Clemens Lang]

Hi Josh,

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 01:06:50AM +1000, Joshua Root wrote:
> 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.)

I'm aware of that. Still, it's probably the most common case that this
optional clause applies, and I'd argue it should be the default for this
reason -- especially because there is no documentation (that I could
find) that explains that you have to explicitly list (L)GPL.

I think we should add an additional MPL-2-NoRelicensing (or "MPL-2
GPLConflict") license to denote the few ports that explicitly do not
have the exception.


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

Yes, we should keep MPL-1 and MPL-1.1 as GPL-conflicting.

-- 
Clemens