>>>Ah, I can now. And it's more like 70-some. I was looking for "Lesser"
>>>and not taking crusty old "Library" into account. Fixed and fixed. But
>>>be it 70 or 0, I still call it "negligible".
>>>
>>Actually, only two are straight LGPL - the others are all dually-licensed.
>
> WAIT. You've been telling me for weeks if not months here that
> LGPL-only code is codex non gratia. NOW you tell me that there's LGPL
> files in Mozilla?!?!?! What gives?
I am having brain spasms. That previous sentence is incorrect. There are
more than two LGPL-only files in the tree. However, this doesn't mean
that they are part of Mozilla.
>>>Oh it is Gerv, it is. In fact, it may be the smartest Perl script ever
>>>devised. But as far as BSD goes, it just looks for "Regents of the
>>>University of California". Will that not catch any and all variants?
>>>
>>Regents of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor? It's not just the
>>University of Berkeley, or universities in general, that use the BSD
>>license.
>
> Ok, I give: how can I do it better? What text is in all BSD licenses?
I ask the questions, buddy.
Seriously: I'm not sure. Something like WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND?
;-) Or perhaps "DO WHAT YOU LIKE, JUST DON'T SUE US".
>>>That said, any graphics files in there are covered by some sort of
>>>license, right? How is that specified?
>>>
>>That's a very good question :-)
>
> And the answer is...?
Well, if there's a particular image file you care about, then it's safe
to assume that it's under the NPL if it was checked in by a Netscape
employee, or the MPL otherwise. Not that the difference really means
anything in this context.
Gerv
