Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote: > Peter Weilbacher wrote: >> [... about stripping license headers from chrome files...] >>> It's completely against my understanding of what per-file licenses are for. >> In a sense, they are stripped from C/C++ sources, too, a user does not >> usually need to look at them and hence does not need to download them. >> But I am beginning to see your point as in principle one can unpack them >> from the JARs. > > The licenses are the licenses for the source code. > The fact that xul/js is interpreted code doesn't mean that the installed > chrome files are "source-code". For correctness the licenses should be > removed because a binary build need not to be a triple-licensed build > and therefore the licenses are wrong for a binary distribution. > But IANAL! > > Wolfgang
X-Post to mozilla.legal. Just to get Gerv's comment maybe? _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
