* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:58:13PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Some examples and test files are licensed under Mozilla-sample-code. > > > > Uh, is that actually a license? > > Yes it is: > > BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK > Version: Mozilla-sample-code 1.0 > > Copyright (c) 2002 Netscape Communications Corporation and > other contributors > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a > copy of this Mozilla sample software and associated documentation files > (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit > persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the > following conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included > in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS > OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL > THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER > LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING > FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER > DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > > Contributor(s): > > END LICENSE BLOCK
That's just the MIT license renamed it would appear. > If you want a full licensing status on the mozilla code base, take a > look to > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/xulrunner/current/copyright > which I actually need to update, I saw that some files changed to > tri-license between 1.8.0.1 and 1.8.0.4... Wow, I should really update the copyright file in firefox. > > > 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. > > The point was that in the worst case scenario, we can't remove the files > I listed without removing support for these architectures. The others > can be removed without harm. Indeed. > Another thing that is a bit annoying is that the LICENSE file in the > upstream tarball is the MPL license text. It'd be better for everyone if > they'd make it clear that everything in the tarball, except external > libraries such as expat, libpng, etc. are tri-licensed. Should we file a bug? -- 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
