Gervase Markham wrote: > > I would say that the XUL and JS, as shipped with the preview release, is > not the preferred form for making modifications. For example, the > Windows build has all the MAC OS X-specific bits stripped out by the > same preprocessor which removes the license blocks.
Yes, definitely the *.jar files are not "source" code, they are processed and packaged. It's confusing that it looks like source, though. Perhaps it could be easily solved by putting a copyright/license file at the top of each archive, or a copyright comment in the zip archive itself (zip -z "This file copyright Mozilla Foundation. Source available under the MPL at..."). I don't know how many people would notice an archive comment, an obvious explanatory file at the top level might be best. Double-plus good because we'd then have a place to describe the copyright and trademark status of the images in the file. -Dan Veditz _______________________________________________ mozilla-license mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-license
