About mozjs24 being built

[Joshua Root]

On 2016-4-4 01:46 , Clemens Lang wrote:
> 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.

Well, documentation can be written. :)

> 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.

Making the dual licensing explicit seems less confusing to me than 
calling the same license two different names.

- Josh