Cédric Corazza wrote: > Hi, > Are l10n teams allowed to localize the Copyright mention. I mean: > "© 1998-2006 Contributors." would became in French: > "© 1998-2006 Les contributeurs" . > This appears in "About Firefox" and at the bottom of each help page That'd be a question for .legal. Axel
Peter Weilbacher wrote: > To support SVG enabled builds of Firefox and SeaMonkey on OS/2 I need to > ship an extra DLL (that is needed to support the font functions in > cairo, and it would be difficult to make all users aware that it is > needed). This DLL consists of code from Expat, FontConfig, and Freetype. > The licenses of these packages require to add at least the following > copyright notices: See about:licence. > - Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003 Expat maintainers. Already included. > Copyright (c) 2001,2003 Keith Packard Included as part of the Cairo stuff; is this for a different bit of code? > - Copyright (c) 1998, 1999, 2000 Thai Open Source Software Center Ltd > and Clark Cooper, Already included. > - Copyright (c) 1996-2002 The FreeType Project (www.freetype.org). > All rights reserved. Not included at the moment. > My question is, can I ship this DLL at all with builds that get > distributed via releases.mozilla.org and if so where to place them?(Continue reading)
Axel Hecht wrote: > Cédric Corazza wrote: >> Hi, >> Are l10n teams allowed to localize the Copyright mention. I mean: >> "© 1998-2006 Contributors." would became in French: >> "© 1998-2006 Les contributeurs" . >> This appears in "About Firefox" and at the bottom of each help page > > That'd be a question for .legal. That sounds fine to me. The idea is that it's a legitimate copyright statement, not that it has to be English. If the Republic Of Freenesia said that a valid copyright statement had to include the word "weasel", then the Freenesian localisation would need to change the copyright statement to include it. Gerv
Gervase Markham wrote: > Peter Weilbacher wrote: >> To support SVG enabled builds of Firefox and SeaMonkey on OS/2 I need to >> ship an extra DLL (that is needed to support the font functions in >> cairo, and it would be difficult to make all users aware that it is >> needed). This DLL consists of code from Expat, FontConfig, and Freetype. >> The licenses of these packages require to add at least the following >> copyright notices: > > See about:licence. Ah, I didn't wait long enough for this link to show up in the animation of the Firefox about box. >> - Copyright (c) 1996-2002 The FreeType Project (www.freetype.org). >> All rights reserved. > > Not included at the moment. Hmm, so what method do you suggest to include it? Should I make a patch for license.html to add the FreeType license with a prefix that says "This license applies to the file components/gklayout.dll as shipped in cairo-enabled OS/2 builds" (the layout DLL is where the FreeType part gets linked into) or something like that? For static builds it ends up in the .exe. And for the other already listed licenses (Expat and Cairo) add that they also "apply to mzfntcfg.dll as shipped in cairo-enabled OS/2 builds". Seems a bit weird...(Continue reading)
Peter Weilbacher wrote:
> Hmm, so what method do you suggest to include it? Should I make a patch
> for license.html to add the FreeType license with a prefix that says
> "This license applies to the file components/gklayout.dll as shipped
> in cairo-enabled OS/2 builds"
Normally, these attribution lines refer to the source files, not the
binary files. The licence does not, in fact, apply to the binary file -
the Mozilla EULA does.
We should add the licence, with a line like:
This license applies to the Freetype library, which may be part of the
OS/2 version of this software.
> And for the other already listed licenses (Expat and Cairo) add that
> they also "apply to mzfntcfg.dll as shipped in cairo-enabled OS/2
> builds". Seems a bit weird...
No. See above. These references are explanatory, not normative.
> No, it is part of one of the prerequisite libraries ("mozfntcfgft"), see
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/OS/2_Build_Prerequisites
> and the sources are available from a publically accessible site that
> until now I linked it in the README file as well as on the devmo site.
OK.
Gerv
(Continue reading)
Hi all.
We're rewriting addons.mozilla.org. It's gonna have funk.
We began in CVS, but have recently moved to the spanking new SVN
server. All the "rules" refer to CVS, but I'm assuming they'll be
identical for SVN aye?
Aaaaanyway, questions.
1) Can we have stuff in SVN that's not under the tri-license?
Specifically, I'm looking at:
* cakephp (php development framework) which is under the MIT
license -
http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/cake/docs/LICENSE.txt
* simpletest (testing suite) which is under the LGPL -
http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/vendors/simpletest/LICENSE
* scriptalicious (javascript libraries) which is under the MIT
license -
http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/app/webroot/js/scriptaculous/scriptaculous.js
* The Cake test suite, which uses The Open Group Test Suite License
- http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/app/tests/lib/LICENSE.txt
* Files that have no license at all (doesn't that make them still
proprietary for the initial developer?) which we have written but not
yet licensed
2) AMOv2 - http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/addons/ -
doesn't actually appear to be licensed at all to me. What's the penalty
for that? Additionally, a small number of files have been moved over,
(Continue reading)
Cameron wrote: > We began in CVS, but have recently moved to the spanking new SVN > server. All the "rules" refer to CVS, but I'm assuming they'll be > identical for SVN aye? Well yes, but there are sometimes different rules for particular webtools. For example, Bugzilla is MPL-only. So it depends to a certain extent what licence you want, if anyone has strong feelings. If no-one does, the tri-licence is recommended. > 1) Can we have stuff in SVN that's not under the tri-license? Yes, if it's compatible with all three licenses. I don't know how the SVN repository is structured compared to the Mozilla repository, but it might make sense to have non-tri-licensed stuff in an other-licenses directory. > * cakephp (php development framework) which is under the MIT > license - > http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/cake/docs/LICENSE.txt OK. > * simpletest (testing suite) which is under the LGPL - > http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk/site/vendors/simpletest/LICENSE This wouldn't be OK in the main Mozilla tree - we don't ship LGPLed code because we want all our code to be compatible with all three licenses, and be able to say "Understand the MPL? OK, you're good to go". But it might be OK here. It's probably a decision for the module owner of addons.(Continue reading)
Hi. It's all in the subject :) . We've been asked by a contributor who wants to provide Solaris localized packages for Mozilla products (or projects) what licence should be used for the localized package. There is no licence provided in the localized packages provided by the the MoCo. So : what is the license and should a license file have to be included ? Thanks
Cédric Corazza wrote: > for the localized package. There is no licence provided in the localized > packages provided by the the MoCo. So : what is the license and should a > license file have to be included ? Is the Solaris team building from source or using the prebuilt langpacks? The sources are tri-license compatible, but I imagine that the built XPIs are licensed under the Firefox EULA. --BDS
RSS Feed2 | |
|---|---|
2 | |
17 | |
10 | |
2 | |
1 | |
2 | |
24 | |
5 | |
1 | |
3 | |
6 | |
4 | |
1 | |
1 | |
4 | |
1 | |
2 | |
5 | |
3 | |
1 | |
7 | |
5 | |
24 | |
10 | |
2 | |
4 | |
4 | |
8 | |
3 | |
5 | |
6 | |
6 | |
20 | |
5 | |
4 | |
4 | |
10 | |
12 | |
13 | |
6 | |
4 | |
3 | |
18 | |
3 | |
13 | |
8 | |
9 | |
5 | |
1 | |
2 | |
3 | |
11 | |
3 | |
8 | |
25 | |
9 | |
14 | |
11 | |
8 | |
13 | |
2 | |
8 | |
1 | |
2 | |
4 | |
3 | |
15 | |
27 | |
24 | |
97 | |
17 | |
14 | |
20 | |
7 | |
8 | |
25 | |
12 | |
23 | |
36 | |
9 | |
21 | |
24 | |
35 | |
23 | |
16 | |
118 | |
24 | |
13 | |
14 | |
11 | |
4 | |
4 | |
15 | |
17 | |
15 | |
17 | |
11 | |
13 | |
16 | |
10 | |
2 | |
13 | |
11 | |
26 | |
4 |
