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

Mozilla relicensing progress


As I hope you've been made aware (a kind friend having texted me about the situation), I've spent the last week doing a Christian camp in France (http://www.interaction-france.org) with no net access of any kind. So I've been unable to deal with the unfortunate situation regarding your attempt to mail me about the Mozilla codebase relicensing.

I can only apologise for the behaviour of the mozilla.org mail servers; their configuration is something over which I have no control. I believe that at least one other mozilla.org developer (Ben Bucksch) has objected to the denial of mail from dynamic IPs; I suspect there is a bug about the issue in http://bugzilla.mozilla.org, but I haven't been able to find it. As I understand it, the mail servers handling gerv@gerv.net have no such policy; you should be able to reach me there.

Anyway... no need to apologise for sending me mail about the relicensing; that's what I'm here for :-) The current status (which I happen to have summarised recently on my blog[0]) is that we have about 2% of the code in the main Mozilla program's tree left to relicense, plus some more which is specific to Firefox, Thunderbird or Camino. This consists of files where our automated script was, for some reason, unable to correctly parse the license block.

The process has been, inevitably, rather stop-start; Mozilla is not my day job, licensing work and enquiries already occupy more of my spare time (that I'd rather spend hacking) than I'd like, and the relicensing script (written in Python for historical reasons, a language with which I am not yet familiar) is maintained by someone else.

Still, I've had several volunteers helping me with the remaining files, and the current bottleneck is me looking at all the patches they've sent me while I've been away. In the mean time, the mozilla.org licensing story for our products is "MPL or looser"; i.e. all the code in the Mozilla suite is available under at least the MPL/NPL (the differences are irrelevant these days) or a looser license such as a BSD-like one (e.g. libjpeg, libpng.) Some code may also be available under other licenses; check the file headers for details and contact us if there is any uncertainty.

This situation is obviously not ideal; however, I'm sure you can see we are working to simplify things.

If I can be of more help, don't hesitate to drop me a line.


[0] http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/005992.html

Reply to: