On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:49:52PM +0200, 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. > Some examples and test files are licensed under Mozilla-sample-code. > > 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. > > I'm going to contact Gerv about that.
I got a clarifying answer. The relicensing is indeed done, which means they got permission from all the contributors involved to relicense the relevant things. Some things may not be MPL/GPL/LGPL if they are under compatible licensing terms (such as the Mozilla-sample-code license). Some others, such as the assembler files I was talking about were just missed by the license status checking scripts and can be considered relicensed. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
