Gervase Markham wrote: > A few nits to pick: > > David Tenser wrote: >> I asked the very same question last week, and this is mconnor's response: >> >> "MPL tri-license by definition. Good point, since CC-by-SA 3.0 is >> also incompatible with our code licenses (which is why we don't use >> them for MDC etc). > > To be precise, MDC uses CC-BY-SA 2.5 or later for all the text content, > and the MIT license for code. > >> We probably should do some outreach to get people to agree. Probably >> can do a bit of bonsai scripting to get the list of individuals who've >> committed content. > > That won't solve the problem completely, because often person B checks > in person A's patch. You have to look in Bugzilla and checkin comments > too, at the least.
Add to that the fact that some of the work is based on my original content, and I was never asked to approve an MPL license on that text. That's probably just good in this case, though, since that means we can apply whatever license we want for those files, right? > > Relicensing is time-consuming and messy. What advantage do we get from > doing it? If we are going to relicense, please ask for CC-BY-SA 3.0 > _or_later_ rather than just 3.0. Makes things much more future-proof. This doesn't sound like a pressing issue to me. Just adding the current license at the end of these articles should work for now. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. The CC-BY-SA _or later_ sounds like a separate discussion that I'd like to find out more about before commenting on here. David _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
