Comment 9 for bug 146324

Revision history for this message
In , John William Dalton (john-dalton) wrote : Re: Bug#279757: Status of freewrl debian package?

Hi John,

> First; one of the not so active FreeWRLians has a directory on line:

Thanks for the pointers.

> > I notice that Debian includes a package called: spidermonkey-bin
> > This is a standalone implementation of the mozilla java script
> > engine, which I'm assuming is the source of the code in
> > FreeWRL's "JS" directory. Is it possible for FreeWRL to
> > have spidermonkey-bin as a dependency and to call it at run
> > time, thus doing away with the need for a JS directory in FreeWRL?
>
>
> The simple answer is "yes, absolutely". The complex answer? the
> build would have to be changed in 2 ways:

>
> - do not go into the JS directory;
> - link against libjs.so instead of libFreeWRLjs.so
>
>
> and it should work just fine.

Probing further, spidermoney-bin is an executable wrapper around the
libmozjs0d package. libmozjs0d is the embeddable JavaScript
library. Debian also provides a package libmozjs-dev,
which provides another copy of the JavaScript library, along with
header files.

libmozjs0d provides the file /usr/lib/libmozjs.so.0d
libmozjs-dev provides header files in /usr/include/mozjs/* and the
file /usr/lib/libmozjs.so

I'm guessing the right package to install and link against is
libmozjs-dev. I'm not an expert though, so someone might
want to verify this.

Yes, you are correct in pointing out that the JS source is dual
licensed. Apologies for the false alarm. (The license MPL file
for JS doesn't hve the dual licensing section filled in and
I didn't check the file headers.)

I've CC'd this to the relevant debian bug so it is on record
that FreeWRL doesn't have a licensing problem.

Regards
John