On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/09/14 10:01, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> I support this reasoning and support a policy that puts tests we write >> under CC0. I think we should still permit importing tests that are >> more restrictively licensed from elsewhere > > As long as they meet our license policies, sure. (For code which is not > shipped, the official policy is simply "must be under an OSI license", > and the unofficial policy is also "should not cause us licensing or > administrative hassle".)
Sounds good. >> and allow people who write >> tests as work-for-hire for the Mozilla Group to contribute to more >> restrictively licensed upstream test repos under the licenses of those >> repos. > > Again, if open source, no problem; if not, we'd have to consider on a > case-by-case basis. We'd be more likely to establish an independent test > suite. The suites I immediately had in mind are the htm5lib test suite (MIT so OSI approved) and various W3C test suites, which are dual licensed under OSI-approved 3-clause BSD and non-OSI-approved W3C Test Suite License. Since CC0 and permissive licenses, including BSD, permit proprietary forks, I don't see explicitly allowing the W3C to license the tests also under the W3C Test Suite License is worse than allowing them to do so less explicitly via CC0 or BSD. >> I think it would make sense for tests that have been written as >> work-for-hire to the Mozilla Group or have otherwise had their >> copyright transferred to the Mozilla Foundation prior to the policy >> change date to be relicensed by the Mozilla Foundation under CC0. That >> way, if a test predated the policy change but the logs showed it was >> authored by an Mozilla employee or contractor, you could treat it as >> CC0 without further bureaucracy. > > I'm happy to do that if all it means is stating it as a policy, but I > don't have time to go and do the research and change license headers. I didn't mean to suggest anyone would do the research proactively. > We can simply say: "if you do the research on a file with no header and > find it qualifies, you can use it under CC0. If you can't be bothered, > you must assume it's MPL2." This is what I meant. -- Henri Sivonen [email protected] https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
