Hi Reto and all, I've updated the license file for Mozile 0.8 in our CVS:
http://www.mozdev.org/source/browse/mozile/www/0.8/LICENSE All the best, James On 2011-09-05, at 12:32 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: > Thanks Henry for finding this. This means that with mozile apache > licensed we can undo the removing of mozile and have and have wysiwyg > editing back in the discobits editor. > > @James: could you add an adapted license notice to the source repository? > > Cheers, > Reto > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Henry Story <henry.st...@bblfish.net> wrote: >> >> On 10 Aug 2011, at 15:47, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> James has agreed to release license mozile under the ASL. >>> >>> As you can read in his mail some icons are licensed under the Creative >>> Commons Attribution 2.5 license. In >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html I don't see the CC licenses >>> listed. >>> >>> Doe anyone know if these icons can be included? >> >> They are listed here >> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html >> >> This is the resource that the 3party points to as the official version. >> >> CC seems to be accepted there. >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Reto >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: James A. Overton <ja...@overton.ca> >>> Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM >>> Subject: Re: Mozile >>> To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <r...@gmuer.ch> >>> >>> >>> Hi Reto, >>> >>> I'm ready to make the licensing changes, but I want to check the >>> details with you first. I presume that it's Mozile 0.8 that you want >>> to use -- if not, let me know. Mozile 0.8 is currently distributed >>> under any one of three licenses >>> (http://mozile.mozdev.org/0.8/LICENSE). My thought was to simply add >>> Apache 2.0 as a fourth available license. Since I wrote all of the >>> Mozile 0.8 code myself, I can make that change. >>> >>> However there are some icons included in the Mozile 0.8 distribution >>> from the Silk icon set, which are licensed under Creative Commons >>> Attribution 2.5 license >>> (http://mozile.mozdev.org/0.8/images/silk/COPYING). Is that acceptable >>> for your purposes? If not, you'll have to replace them with something >>> else, I guess. >>> >>> I don't know anything about this hallo-editor, but Mozile does not >>> work the same as contentEditable editors. ContentEditable started in >>> old versions of IE and presents some basic editing commands to produce >>> HTML 3 era markup. Mozile uses standard DOM commands. (Sometimes >>> Mozile uses contentEditable just to get an editing cursor.) In theory, >>> Mozile should be more powerful and flexible. In practice, the Mozile >>> code always had bugs, and by now it's pretty old. >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2011-07-15, at 14:31 , Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: >>> >>>> Hi James >>>> >>>> That's good news! >>>> >>>> I noticed the problem right before the planed release, so for this very >>>> first release (currently being voted upon) i just removed mozile >>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLEREZZA-608). I opened a new issue >>>> (CLEREZZA-609) to re-allow inline editing. >>>> >>>> Another editor I wanted to look at is henry bergius hallo-editor. A >>>> minimalistic conetntEditable based editor. Do you happen to know how the >>>> different approaches compare? >>>> >>>> Hope you're enjoying your travelling. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Reto >>>> On Jul 15, 2011 3:19 PM, "James A. Overton" <ja...@overton.ca> wrote: >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >>
