Cameron wrote: > We began in CVS, but have recently moved to the spanking new SVN > server. All the "rules" refer to CVS, but I'm assuming they'll be > identical for SVN aye?
Well yes, but there are sometimes different rules for particular webtools. For example, Bugzilla is MPL-only. So it depends to a certain extent what licence you want, if anyone has strong feelings. If no-one does, the tri-licence is recommended. > 1) Can we have stuff in SVN that's not under the tri-license? Yes, if it's compatible with all three licenses. I don't know how the SVN repository is structured compared to the Mozilla repository, but it might make sense to have non-tri-licensed stuff in an other-licenses directory. > * cakephp (php development framework) which is under the MIT > license - > http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/cake/docs/LICENSE.txt OK. > * simpletest (testing suite) which is under the LGPL - > http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/vendors/simpletest/LICENSE This wouldn't be OK in the main Mozilla tree - we don't ship LGPLed code because we want all our code to be compatible with all three licenses, and be able to say "Understand the MPL? OK, you're good to go". But it might be OK here. It's probably a decision for the module owner of addons. > * scriptalicious (javascript libraries) which is under the MIT > license - > http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/app/webroot/js/scriptaculous/scriptaculous.js OK. > * The Cake test suite, which uses The Open Group Test Suite License > - http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/app/tests/lib/LICENSE.txt Hmm. The OSI says this is free, but it has some irritating restrictions in it. What are you testing with it? > * Files that have no license at all (doesn't that make them still > proprietary for the initial developer?) which we have written but not > yet licensed At mozilla.org, the copyright is always owned by the person who wrote the code - that is, we don't require copyright assignment. Whether they have been licensed under a free software licence to everyone else or not is irrelevant to that question. > 2) AMOv2 - http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/addons/ - > doesn't actually appear to be licensed at all to me. What's the penalty > for that? Additionally, a small number of files have been moved over, > eg. the plugin finder service - > http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/services/pfs/pfs.php You'd have to ask the original authors what their licensing intent was, but otherwise I'd assume tri-licensed. > 3) The job of throwing the license at all the files that we've written > has fallen to me, so another question. Does the contributors list to a > file include people who only made minor edits? eg. changed a single > line, fixed a grammatical error, etc. We normally say that it includes everyone who changed the file and bothered to add themselves. So there is no need for you to do any editing of the list at all when you add license blocks to new files. Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
