* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:10:29AM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Last time I checked (and it was after Gerv's post), the relicensing changes > > were still not applied to the MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH. Things seem to have > > changed, but that needs some checking. I took some random files to check > > and found out files that are not tri-licensed in the trunk, so... *sigh* > > After a slightly closer look, it seems most of the code is actually > tri-licensed, even in the Firefox 2 branch. Strangely enough, while the > vast majority of the code is under MPL/GPL/LGPL, some of it is under > NPL/GPL/LGPL. That doesn't change much for us, but it's still strange. > Still a lot of files don't have a license text at all, including > examples and test source code.
Well I'm glad it's mostly resolved. It's odd that there are still things licensed under the NPL. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ says it's not even used in any mozilla code anymore. > Some examples and test files are licensed under Mozilla-sample-code. Uh, is that actually a license? > The most problematic files are in xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix. > This directory contains assembler code for xpcom on several platforms. > While a lot of these files are not of any use for us (irix, vms...) some > are indeed used: > xptcinvoke_asm_ppc_linux.s, xptcstubs_asm_ppc_linux.s and > xptcinvoke_asm_sparc_linux.s are NPL only ; > xptcinvoke_asm_mips.s is MPL. Even if we don't use the irix, vms, etc files, if they're problematic license-wise, we'd need to strip them out or get the license fixed. > I'm going to contact Gerv about that. Fantastic. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
