Preview Firefox releases strip the license block from included source js and xul files.
Mozilla Public License 1.1 says: [MPL1.1 sec3.5] You must duplicate the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code. If it is not possible to put such notice in a particular Source Code file due to its structure, then You must include such notice in a location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to look for such a notice. [MPL1.1 sec1.11] "Source Code" means the preferred form of the Covered Code for making modifications to it, ... The Source Code can be in a compressed or archival form... (Note that the exception, "If it is not possible to put such a notice in a particular Source Code file due to its structure", does not apply to any text source code syntax that allows multiple comment lines.) Does sec3.5 mean A. ALL distributions of source code must have the license block in each file of the source code, or B. SOME distribution of source code must have the license block in each file of the source code ? In other words, is it ok to distribute source code where the license block has been stripped out of source files (say, to save space and bandwidth), as long as you also make available source code where the license block has not been stripped out? Arguments for 'A' and against 'B': Spirit: distributing copies of the source code without the owner's license in each file makes it more likely that source code will be illegally redistributed. (Someone who as only a copy without the license blocks is more likely to modify and redistribute it without understanding they need to get and distribute source with the license blocks, or to redistribute just part of the source and inadvertently leave out the license.) (Marketing: some paranoid organizations may shun all the code for fear of misusing source that wasn't clearly identified...) (Technical: stripping the license block messes up the code line numbers in error reports.) An argument for 'B' and against 'A': Technical: Distributing copies of the source code without the owner's license permits smaller executable distributions that include source code (such as xul and js files), at least using compression technology that does not compress across files (such as individual zip/jar files). (A workaround is to a create a zip (jar) file whose entries are not compressed, and then compress the whole zip [jar] file together inside another zip [xpi] file, so strings that are shared across file entries are discovered and compressed. This reduces xpi size, at expense of larger installed jar size.) Xul and js files in preview Firefox jars have the license block stripped out which assumes 'B', but that might be an oversight by FF developers. The discussions of section 3.5 in n.p.m.license seem only to say that the intent is to include the license block on every file, and do not discuss stripping license blocks from js and xul files for runtime distribution. _______________________________________________ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
