Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote: > 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?
The installed chrome files are not considered by us to be source code in the MPL sense. However, the licence headers are not, as such, wrong - if you took one of those files and removed it from the distribution, you could use it under one of those three licences. So the licences could be removed, but do not have to be. Is this a space-saving issue? I would hope that the ZIP algorithm on the JARs would mean it doesn't make much difference. However, if you still want to remove them, the LICENSE BLOCK headers were put there for just this purpose. If you remove all text up to (but not including) those lines, the idea is that any multi-line comments will still be intact and nothing will break. (Ideally, it would be possible to remove those lines also, and remove the entire comment block. But I don't know if every block exactly conforms to the template in the correct way. Try it and see.) Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
