On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:58:13PM -0400, Eric Dorland <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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
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.
END LICENSE BLOCK
If you want a full licensing status on the mozilla code base, take a
which I actually need to update, I saw that some files changed to
tri-license between 188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206...
> > 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.
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.