MPL being file-level, I don't think we've had major obstacles to inclusion in any project. Barring that, MIT license would be a decent fallback.
On 20 July 2015 at 19:09, Richard Newman <rnew...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I think we should do all options for max coverage. >> >> But, I have a strong preference for an SDK. (Note that SDK is a big word >> for something that is distributed in a single source file and has a two >> method API.) >> > > I agree with everything in this mail. My put to Bryan just now was that we > should call the thing we're shipping now a "reference project", not an SDK > — that'll remove a lot of confusion. I've asked Bryan to make sure bugs are > on file for everything else. > > Here's my next question, which I guess goes to mfinkle and gerv. > Can/should we make this reference project Public Domain or BSD licensed, or > do we consider MPL2.0 to be loose enough that it won't impede adoption? >
_______________________________________________ mobile-firefox-dev mailing list mobile-firefox-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
