On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:49:52PM +0200, Mike Hommey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:10:29AM +0200, Mike Hommey <email@example.com> 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