[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cdrtools

* Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:10:29AM +0200, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> 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.


Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: