Gia Shervashidze wrote:
We're going to create dedicated site (under supervision of the
Georgianization Internet Alliance community) for Georgianization of
Mozilla and derivatives under name MozillaGe.org.
Temporary address:
Site: http://www.visithost.com/~mozilla/
Forum:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Having said that, we feel your pain on the dictionaries front. There are
some technical solutions we might be able to adopt. Let me have a think.
And here we are:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/008286.html
Gerv
Hasse wrote:
Gerv said in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=286606#c59
that GPLed dictionaries was not acceptable. But what about dictionaries
released under LGPL? Would such a dictionary be allowed in a
mozilla.org release?
Our current position is that all the code in official
Standard8 wrote:
My problem comes down to what to put in the boilerplate. I've got that
the original code is mozilla.org code but what should I put in the
initial developer of the original code?
If all the original files had the same Initial Developer, use that,
otherwise use the one which
Marek Stepien wrote:
If that was true, there would be no GPL'd programs for Windows. :)
That doesn't apply, as the GPL has an exception for things shipped with
the OS. This exception is designed to allow free software programs to
run on non-free OSes.
Gerv
Darius Blaszijk wrote:
Hello,
I would like to ask you some information on the differences between GPL and
MPL software. I have a project that is released under GPL license and I
would like to use MPL libraries. Is this possible or do I have to use GPL
libraries or switch to MPL??
Either use
Samphan Raruenrom wrote:
Can we call it, e.g. Thai Firefox Community Edition.
Does the name allow applying patch to the build?
Normally, you can't apply code patches for community editions. However,
we do make exceptions for cases like this. Please email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] explaining what you
Jinsong Liu wrote:
I am implementing a commercial .NET based application. And I found some
module I need have already being implemented for Mozilla. Can I study
the Mozilla code then reimplement it in my application (not going to
copy any code, but will probably reimplement similar logic or
I'm the Debian packager of Firefox translations, and also of the RTL
theme.
As the translations don't include any license information, neither most of
the files of the RTL theme do, I'd like to know under which license are
they distributed.
Translations are Modifications of the English version.
Christian Rauh wrote:
I have the same situation, would like to use NetBeans classes (under
SPL) on an application. That would be a larger work, I assume. So, as
long as a link to the source classes of NetBeans and a notice about the
license is in my application, can I release it under any
none wrote:
I would like to use a discrete set of Netbeans classes (specifically,
the javacvs package) and without modifying them as such (other than by
extension), embed them within a commercial application. If those
classes are available as source, and the text of the Sun Public License
is
The SPL web site says specifically that this is the place to get these
queries answered. On http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/license.html,
you will find the paragraph:
If you have any questions about the license, what it allows and
prohibits, we suggest you head over to the Mozilla License
none wrote:
I would like to use a discrete set of Netbeans classes (specifically,
the javacvs package) and without modifying them as such (other than by
extension), embed them within a commercial application. If those
classes are available as source, and the text of the Sun Public License
is
Andreas Rittershofer wrote:
The legal situation of Mozilla is rather confusing, there is a Netscape
Public License, a Mozilla Public License. Additionally there is a Mozilla
EULA, but only for Thunderbird and Firefox.
As the name implies, the EULA is a licence agreement for users. Its
provisions
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Has the Mozilla Foundation been in contact with CC over these issues?
Not to my knowledge.
The Mozilla Foundation generally wants its offerings to be DFSG-free,
right?
Well, it's certainly nice.
However, as I mentioned on debian-legal only yesterday, there's no
Olav Vitters wrote:
How should I give credit to the authors of these functions in the MPL
header? Should I take all developers mentioned at the top of each
original file (globals.pl, checksetup.pl)? Or the names appearing in the
2.16 functions as shown by cvsblame?
Take all the developers from the
fantasai wrote:
Why doesn't the license explicitly allow redistribution of the
unmodified binary
installation package?
Good question. We do, of course, permit this (see the Trademark FAQ) but
it would make sense to say so in the licence also.
Gerv
___
Jimmy Cerra wrote:
Vidar Braut Haarr,
I agree. Even the FSF urges people not to use LGPL, IIRC.
Why then is Mozilla licensed under the LGPL (as well as the others)?
That was never clear to me from the docs.
Read the Relicensing FAQ. Short answer: our aims are not the same as theirs.
Gerv
Jimmy Cerra wrote:
Right now, I released a project under the GPL [1], but I'm considering
relicensing it under a tri-license GPL/LGPL/MPL. What are the
advantages of this?
Your code could be included in Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird :-)
Tri-licensing is the right option when you want your code to
Alexander N. Treyner wrote:
I would like to wrote a some firefox extension that I would like to sell
for a profit. Can I distribute my extension using other license ?
I am going to assume your question actually was can I keep my code
proprietary?
Yes, as long as it includes no code copied from
Gili wrote:
Section 3.7 (larger works) seems to imply that the final product must
satisfy the Mozilla Public License if it uses any MPL libraries within.
No, it doesn't say that at all. It says that if You combine MPL code
(Covered Code) with other code and distribute the Larger Work as a
Marko Lahtinen wrote:
I was thingking about putting a splashscreen to my app. Can you give me a
short example what to write to
the splashscreen about the part that uses the MPL licensed component ?
It doesn't necessarily have to be in the splash screen. Basically, just
read the MPL and do what it
Geka M wrote:
[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...
I would say that the XUL and JS, as shipped with the preview release, is
not the preferred form for making
Gervase Markham wrote:
The NSS tip has recently been tri-licensed. You need to either use the
CVS version or (better) contact the NSS developers and ask them when
they plan to make a new stable release.
I believe the answer to this question is the end of the year. If this
presents a problem
YAMAGUCHI Satoru wrote:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/l10n-policy.html
This document is where it is on the mozilla.org webserver to make it
easier for Mozilla staff members to review. The comment I put at the top
about public discussion was rather premature - I will remove it this
I took a task a few weeks ago to investigate the Sleepycat license
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php) to see if it was
compatible with the MPL/LGPL and GPL in a way that would allow code
released under it to be used by Mozilla.
As far as I can see, I'm afraid it's not. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I understand the licensing correctly, this means I can release my code
under any license, so long as I follow section 3.6
That is correct.
by having a conspicuously included notice that part of my product is build
from MPL`d source and where that`s
available (pointing
Marek A. Stepien wrote:
(Note: if you are compiling a Mozilla-like package, this may be already
included, e.g. in about:mozilla.)
This should rather be simply about:, since the Book of Mozilla doesn't
say anything about the location of sources. At least in the latest
nightly build. :-)
Oops. Good
Benedikt Kantus wrote:
Well-- just out of curiosity, how long will it take? Is there any reason
for the delay, like internal discussions?
That's not meant to be offending, I was just wondering.
Sure. It's a fair question. The answer, I'm afraid, is when I get time
to think about it. Hopefully
Mike Fedyk wrote:
trademark law. Some uses are easy answers -- distributors who build
Firefox from source for some reason but aren't modifying it should
clearly be able to use the logos. We'll be working on this topic over
That will exclude just about every distribution.
That's the circle
Kiril wrote:
Note that depending on license requirements, such a combination is not
always possible. The answer to your problem may end up being just don't
use that code, then.
Most, if not all, the contributed original code has been previously
licensed under the GPL and per the GPL,
Kiril wrote:
1) A cleanup of the license policy of the project is needed
2) A file by file license is more appropriate for the project.
You may not get a choice, depending on the status of the code which
makes it up :-)
If the code has been modified from the original code in a manner that
Kiril wrote:
You may not get a choice, depending on the status of the code which
makes it up
Could you expand on this.
There's no deep meaning behind it - I was just expanding on my point
that if you have a bunch of code which is only under the GPL, and
another bunch which is only under the
Kiril wrote:
The scenario is a project which is a collection of various scripts/code
from different original authors which have been modified to work in
conjunction with the project as a whole, in much the same way as
Mozilla.
Note that depending on license requirements, such a combination
I'm looking for a Mac user, preferably one who has been contributing to
the Mozilla project for a while, to help me investigate in a discreet
way some possible MPL violations relating to mozilla.org code in
commercial Mac OS X products. Low key, low profile - no fuss.
Please get in touch if
Marcin Jagodziski wrote:
we run web store with t-shirts, mugs sweatshirts (similar to
cafepress.com). one of our partners opened store with mozilla logos.
does mozilla license permits us to sell this kind of stuff?
Not without a trademark license, no.
we can pay part of our income to
Kristopher K. wrote:
Hello,
I'm in the process of building Mozilla based application for our
clients. I was wondering about the branding restrictions on using a
different splash and screen main .exe names and icons in our build. Our
intention is not to hide the fact that we are using
What is the prefered way to document these changes?
You have discretion.
Is it sufficient to
provide a diff file containing the changes made between original
mozilla.c
I would say that would meet the requirement.
and my modified version of mozilla.c? Is it ok to distribute the:
modified
Håvard Mork wrote:
I was wondering how bad it is to reuse artwork from www.mozilla.org on
Mozilla localization web sites.
Although we might not yet be very organised about telling people that
this is the case, the position is (I believe) that you need to email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to ask about
mark kaplun wrote:
There is no copyright notice at the pref.xul file. How should I copyright my
modified work? should I use MPL, my own copyright, or any other alternative?
You are confusing copyright and copyright licensing :-) The copyright in
pref.xul is owned by whichever Mozilla contributor
lu_x33 wrote:
The wrapper program is a stub program with at the end a copy of the
encoded Mozilla executable (the executable is only encoded not
modified); when the program run decode, with the help of the kernel
driver, on-fly the mozilla executable. The kernel driver known the
process so it
lu_x33 wrote:
I want to distribute mozilla firebird with encoded html pages;
the browser executable is protected with a commercial wrapper program
(like UPX - Ultimate Packer for eXecutables, but with no source).
Can you explain more about how this wrapper program works and what it
does?
Am I
Thorsten Haude wrote:
1. Is the MWL part of the Mozilla project?
No.
2. If it is, is it affected by the license change from NPL to
NPL/GPL/LGPL?
No.
3. Where can I read a definite statement about this?
There isn't one, because we've never come across the MicroLine widget
library before :-)
Bibbs, Christopher wrote:
From my reading and the advise of council, MPL allows covered code to mix
with non-covered code for a larger work without requiring that non-covered
code be converted to MPL.
To be more specific: the copyleft on the MPL is per-file, so if you
change an MPLed file, you
info wrote:
1) Can I make changes to the source code that is under the MPL
license?
2) Can I redistribute that changed source code?
3) Can I redistribute that source code, under a different name?
4) Do I have to make the changes that I made to the source code
public?
What do you think the
luke petersson wrote:
I only wanted to know how 'JSS' is licensed.
What do the source code files for JSS say? (And what exactly is JSS?
Java Security Services?)
Gerv
___
Mozilla-license mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rainer Kugland wrote:
thanks for your comments so far. But I think that asking if it's
possible or not to sell a stand alone app based on mozilla isn't that
exotic.
Yes, it's perfectly possible.
But I can't find anything in the FAQ here. Also I don't know any
commercial app based on mozilla.
Michael Krumbein wrote:
Are you distribut[ing] Covered Code in Executable form? :-) I would
say you are, and so then yes.
I wasn't sure if that applied to people unconnected to than the developer.
If the license doesn't apply to you, then under what rights are you
using the code at all? :-)
If
RJ Preston wrote:
I am trying to figure out which license terms (NPL, MPL, GPL, LGPL) apply to
the source code files for spidermonkey when they are obtained from
Mozilla.org.
The easiest way is to download the source and look :-)
My understanding is that any particular such file is licensed only
Brant Langer Gurganus wrote:
Would a rewrite of Bugzilla using ColdFusion require the license and
past contributor lists to still apply?
If you were transliterating code (i.e. looking at one version and
writing it in a different language) then yes, because it's a derivative
work.
But why
Hendrik Steyn wrote:
Sorry but I get a bit lost in the leagal jargon.
We're happy to give advice, but don't sue us (although you'd have fun
trying, as I'm in the UK and I doubt you are.)
If I want to use part of the SQL engine source as a basis for developing a
new SQL engine which has
Yuichiro MASUI wrote:
SpiderMonkey is NPL/GPL dual licenses.
Can I use SpiderMonkey(NPL's software) with BSD's software.
Yes, if you use Spidermonkey under the NPL rather than under the GPL.
Is it 'combination' that a file includes NPL's header file?
Does it violate NPL that BSD license
As some of you may know, we have been working for a while to get Mozilla
relicensed under an MPL/LGPL/GPL disjunctive tri-license, in order that
Mozilla code can be used in more free software projects. There are free
software projects who want to use Mozilla code who currently can't due
to
* Manually updating the licenses guarantees that it is a appropriate to
update the license.
For the directories we are running it on, this appropriateness is
determined in advance.
* Due to the wide variety of comment formats, you would have to guess
the format based on the extension (which
Well what *is* mozilla.org's legal status? I couldn't find a clearcut
reference on this.
There isn't one :-)
I also did some searching at the U.S. Govt.'s copyright office
(www.copyright.gov), and I didn't see anything in particular that barred
mozilla.org from having a copyright assigned
So the question(s) is :
- can I sell the application without any problems regarding the licence?
Yes. The license does not restrict charging for Mozilla-based products.
- i must put the project source somewhere to be available on the WEB?
You need to reread section 3.6, which deals with
Alex Vincent wrote:
Maybe we can do the same thing, create a form people could submit to
assign a copyright for their documentation to mozilla.org .
As I understand it, mozilla.org is not a legal entity which can own
copyrights.
Gerv
So I must make the program open-source (which is fine, as I am a huge
fan of the open-source community), but AFAIK (and IANAL and know that
YANAL also) a program must be copyrighted before a license is added.
Can I just put Copyright 2003 Anonymous before the license, may I just
leave out the
I can distribute my compiled executable as public domain, freeware,
shareware, commercial etc. I am not required to release my source
code, and I'm not required to make mention anywhere in the executable
or related documentation that it uses the JEDI library.
So, is my interpretation correct?
andkonDOTcom wrote:
http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/
Okay read specifically the section Netscape Fraud where I ramble
about the Netscape license. I understand the Netscape License to mean
that they do not have to release some part of modified code as open
source.
It means if Netscape, for
Robert Petersen wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
However, the problem is that we have a partner which
may resell the product. They have a legal policy which is risk averse
and they believe that Rhino is viral and may put their proprietary
source code at risk, although their software will not even
Robert Petersen wrote:
I work for a company that uses Rhino do javascript processing as part of
a commercial product. There has been some concern about what we need to
do to fullfill the license requirements. We have not modified the code
at all and are simply using the standard .jar. So my
Frank Tang wrote:
We try copy some open source code from JP-NIC to put into mozilla to
addresss Unicode Normalization (Decomposition/Composition) , IDNS
NamePref and IDNS RACE encode issue
(see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8275 )
Can someone look at the patch in this bug
I would be grateful, if some authoratitive person could give me a hint,
links, or anything else that helps me to answer the question: is there a
legal way to fully localize NS 7.0?
No. As you say, the English strings for the common parts are based on
Mozilla's strings, so you could localise
Bernhard_Kuster wrote:
I have a question: Is there a connection between the special rights for
Netscape in NPL and the late release of Mozilla version 1.0?
No. Netscape has never exercised its special rights with regard to the
NPL (apart from to relicense everything under the NPL under an
A while back, I was interested in Sky Pilot and so investigated its
licensing status. It is as follows:
After reading the terms and conditions, it seems the Netscape Theme Park
contest did not assert any rights over the code submitted. So, the
situation depends on the source of the files.
Aiui, the NPL is not a free license.
It doesn't conform to the free software or open source definitions, no.
Aiui, some files in the Mozilla codebase are NPL
only. These files are not dual or triple licensed.
Note here that I am talking about the best possible
view of the situation: if
Gervase Markham wrote:
Aiui, the NPL is not a free license.
It doesn't conform to the free software or open source definitions, no.
It appears this statement may not be true. I actually haven't checked,
so don't take my word for it.
Gerv
files in that case) doesn't allow to be mixed
with the MPL, and we have MPL-only files in
the tree.
OK. Hmm. So SeaMonkey is free, but incompatible
(in terms of mixing source) with some other free
software. Is that correct?
The point of the relicensing is to make it compatible;
According to http://www.jwz.org/hacks/, Mozilla
is a corporate division of AOL/Netscape. It is part of
a commercial entity. AOL/Netscape would appear to be the only
entity capable of granting a license.
What do you mean by granting a license? The copyrights to Mozilla rest
with the authors
thanks for your patient reply - I take your points.
However, there are various anxieties even in
this newsgroup from Netscape legal folk
regarding obstacles to GPL licenses?
Can I ask: what is the legal status
of mozilla.org. Is it a trust or a foundation?
I don't know for certain, but I
compilation and debugging, and was
surprised to see very little support for the triple
license in place. This is very late in the day
given Mozilla 1.0 is just a breath away from general
release.
Although we had hoped to get all the changes in for 1.0, it seems it's not to be. It's
a lot
mike jarosch wrote:
Ok, I've read the NPL and I understand that I can use Spidermonkey in my
commercial application as long as I mention in the credits and a readme file
that Spidermonkey used under the terms of the NPL, available at
http://www.mozilla.org/; and don't make any changes to
Simon Armstrong wrote:
I don't know where netscape or the listed contributors to
the DToA.java source found in rhino/org/mozilla/javascript/
get off excluding the original authors copyright notice
as found in dtoa.c which reads:
snip
I should mention, perhaps belatedly, that we fixed this
For this, is it enough if we just simply say we are using JSS in our
documentation
No, this is not sufficient.
or do we have to download the source code of nss and jss into our
site and point to the url in a about dialog box or a link in our html pages.
You really need to read the
I have a customer who wish to distribute a browser along with HTML
content on a CDROM for both Windows and Mac users.
I would like to know if he could distribute Mozilla and which would be
his obligations in the positive case.
You need to read the MPL - http://www.mozilla.org/MPL . That
I am not sure about the licensing, so here are my questions:
Your questions would be best answered by reading the license :-) It's
available at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ . We're happy to give you
advice on what we (and most other people) think it means if you like.
1. Under what
And a deafening silence is the result, not even a 'its rubbish go away'.
I don't believe it's necessary, because I (and, as I understand it, the
other staff, and anyone else who has ever implemented a dual licensing
scheme) do not agree with your interpretation of how dual licensing works.
Ben Bucksch wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
When I said the codebase, I meant as a whole. They can't do nasty
proprietary things with it as there are too man
...y contributors involved, I assume.
...y MPLed files in the tree is actually where I was going. Hmm.
Editor widget woes, I
Emlyn wrote:
Things like NSPR and XPCOM are extremely cool technlogies which would be
of great use to other free software projects, who would not have to
re-implement the portable-runtime and cross-platform component model wheels.
Speaking of which, because XPCOM is so very useful, are
AOL has exactly the same rights (effectively) to the codebase that you
do.
As we saw in the very last days, this is untrue, if the code is under
the NPL (or even MPL).
Sorry, are you complaining that AOL is using its rights to work towards levelling the
playing field.
When I said the
license
header from the MPL, LGPL and GPL on each one. Whenever you make
changes to the file, you update all three copies. If someone wants to
use the file, he picks which copy to use. If you are, for example,
Netscape,
However this is not the case, there are not three files but one.
This is not the case. Let's do a thought experiment:
You have a file of code. You make three copies and put one of the
license header from the MPL, LGPL and GPL on each one. Whenever you make
changes to the file, you update all three copies. If someone wants to
use the file, he picks which
I personally don't see any reason one could not combine code under the
GPL with code under the LGPL, leaving all license notices intact, and
then distribute the resulting work as a whole under GPL terms. To claim
otherwise would seem to imply that doing this violates the terms of
either
For example, consider the case when you take the source code for a GPLed
application and the source code for an LGPLed library used by the
application. You compile all the code, link it together (let's say
statically for the sake of argument),
I don't know if this makes a difference,
I'm trying to catch up with my mail and I was
wondering, wth is JOOI? (if someone can direct me
to an acronym directory online I'd apreciate it
very much)
Just Out Of Interest.
http://www.acronymfinder.com
Rodrigo (who is still trying to know whether he
was blocked from the
86 matches
Mail list logo
