Robert Sayre | 1 Aug 2006 01:13
Picon
Gravatar

jsdtoa.c

<http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/js/src/jsdtoa.c>

This file contains two licenses:

The standard tri-license, and a BSD/MIT-style license. The spidermonkey 
additions appear to be intermingled with the orignal Bell Labs code. 
Lucent does not seem to appear in the initial contributors section.

Not sure if this is an issue or not,

-Rob
Gervase Markham | 7 Aug 2006 12:53
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: jsdtoa.c

Robert Sayre wrote:
> <http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/js/src/jsdtoa.c>
> 
> This file contains two licenses:
> 
> The standard tri-license, and a BSD/MIT-style license. 

Yes. This is fine, because the MIT licence does not forbid adding extra
terms, and the MPL terms are a superset of the MIT terms.

> The spidermonkey
> additions appear to be intermingled with the orignal Bell Labs code.
> Lucent does not seem to appear in the initial contributors section.

Arguably there should have been such a credit; however, the MPL gives no
guidance as to how these fields should be filled in, so it's hard to
tell what the right thing to do is.

I'm happy with the current situation.

Gerv
Gervase Markham | 7 Aug 2006 12:50
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: licensing webtools in mozilla cvs

Axel Hecht wrote:
> I'm in the process of opening up the code and web-stuff that I created
> for l10n.
> The stuff is in two parts, there is some python code which generates
> json data snippets. I put that code under triple license, I guess that
> fits well.
> The other part is a webpage that actually displays this data, as in,
> html/css/js. Most of our websites are under cc by-sa now, is that a good
> license to use or would triple licensing webcontent make sense?

I'd tri-license it. HTML and JS are code, not content.

Gerv
Gervase Markham | 7 Aug 2006 12:51
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: License block / Original Code is...

Marcio wrote:
> I see source from mozilla which Original code sometimes refer to an
> entiry, to a person, and sometimes to a code title. So I wonder feedback
>  on what is the best definition of it and/or if you have an URL I can
> read more..

This is merely a description of the nature of the original code. There
are no rules about what it might say. We have things as specific as "The
Foo Corp. MD5 implementation" and as general as "mozilla.org code". Both
are fine, or something in between.

Gerv
supernova00 | 29 Aug 2006 23:21
Picon

AMO spoof?

http://update.mozilla.or.kr/addons/index.php

Not sure if that is legal so figured I'd post here for you guys to
figure it out. :) Found that link in my server log, so I guess someone
clicked on the homepage link of my extension that was copied to that
place.
supernova00 | 29 Aug 2006 23:27
Picon

Re: AMO spoof?

Another

http://addons.mozine.org/

Seems like an exact dupe...even down to the favicon
Marek Stepien | 30 Aug 2006 18:19

Re: AMO spoof?

supernova00 <at> gmail.com napisał(a):
> http://update.mozilla.or.kr/addons/index.php
> 
> Not sure if that is legal so figured I'd post here for you guys to
> figure it out. :) Found that link in my server log, so I guess someone
> clicked on the homepage link of my extension that was copied to that
> place.
> 

This site is owned by the Korean localization (mozilla.or.kr). I see
nothing wrong with it (though I don't speak Korean).

Others also have their local AMO-like sites, e.g.
http://erweiterungen.de/ or http://mozillapl.org/rozszerzenia

--

-- 
Marek Stępień <marcoos <at> aviary.pl>
AviaryPL - polski zespół lokalizacyjny Mozilli
http://www.firefox.pl/ | http://www.mozilla.org.pl/
Chris Ilias | 31 Aug 2006 01:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: trademarks

_gwtc_ spoke thusly on 30/08/2006 4:07 PM:
> I'm curious to know.  How can a site like this: 
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html get away with 
> using Mozilla TradeMarks? I'm talking about the logos under "Link 
> Bombing"  and under Editors Pick

Cross-post and follow-up set to mozilla.legal.

Mozilla folks already know about that page[1][2][3], so it is likely 
that they've already seen the logos; but the logos may have been added 
since then.

[1]<http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/>
[2]<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2005/12/accettura_tears.html>
[3]<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2006/01/scum.html>
--

-- 
Chris Ilias
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
Mozilla links <http://ilias.ca>
(Please do not email me tech support questions)

Gmane