Embedding sample code licence has been changed

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

()

Core
Embedding: APIs
RESOLVED FIXED
14 years ago
14 years ago

People

(Reporter: Adam Lock, Assigned: gerv)

Tracking

Trunk
x86
Windows XP
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(2 attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

14 years ago
All of the sample Gecko client code apps under mozilla/embedding/tests were
change to have an MIT style licence in bug 82339. This was to allow anyone to do
what they like with those files, e.g. use them as the basis of their own and
possibly proprietary apps built around the Gecko engine.

Bug 236613 has changed them to be a tri-MPL/GPL/LGPL licence which now makes it
inappropriate for anyone to use these files unless under one of those licences.

Arguments for using the MIT licence and discussion can be found in the original bug.
Doh! Big mistake on my part.

Adam: are you able to pull by date and back this out? If that's too much hassle,
I can do it next week.

I'll update the relicensing scripts to ignore the relevant directories. Do you
have a complete list?

Gerv
(Reporter)

Comment 2

14 years ago
At present it is everything under mozilla/embedding/tests.

I can possibly back out (or rather reapply) the licences to some of the
directories by hand, but if you have some script that does it, can you attach it
and I'll see if I can bulk change the lot of them?
Problem is, we can't just reverse the checkin as there have been a few checkins
since then. 
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=all&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&dir=mozilla%2Fembedding%2Ftests&file=&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=2004-03-01&maxdate=&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot

CCing all the people who've checked in. Do we back the lot out and you guys
re-commit, or do we try and hack the script to re-relicense under the original
license?

Gerv

Comment 4

14 years ago
Licence waiver: do whatever you want with my checkin to winEmbed.cpp as long as
it does not require action from me.

Bernd (cvs: bmlk@gmx.de)
(Reporter)

Comment 5

14 years ago
Created attachment 157332 [details]
Perl script to fix licences

This perl script munges back the sample code licences. It can be invoked with a
script like this:

for i in `grep -Rl "Version: MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1" .`
do
   if [ ! -e $i.mpl ]
   then
     cp -f $i $i.mpl
   fi
   perl embed_munge_licence.pl < $i.mpl > $i
done
Bernd: good idea. 

caillon, biesi, roc: you all checked in while this mistake was present. Are you
cool with switching this back, and could you post a similar waiver?

Gerv
(In reply to comment #6)
> Bernd: good idea. 
> 
> caillon, biesi, roc: you all checked in while this mistake was present. Are you
> cool with switching this back, and could you post a similar waiver?

The patch I checked in (looking at the bonsai link in comment 3) was not my
code, so I can't authorize any license changes.  marco@gnome.org is responsible
for that patch.  Adding him.

Comment 8

14 years ago
> The patch I checked in (looking at the bonsai link in comment 3) was not my
> code, so I can't authorize any license changes.  marco@gnome.org is responsible
> for that patch.  Adding him.

The license change is fine with me.
sure, this change is fine with me.
Yes, this license change is fine with me. 
I've reverted the licenses of all code in embedding/tests using the script
attached to this bug (thanks Adam :-). I've also added embedding/tests to the
list of directories the relicensing script skips.

Please let me know if there are further problems.

Gerv
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Does this need to be done with the 1.7 and Aviary branches as well, so that the
correct licensing info is present no matter which of the currently active
branches you pull the source from?
<sigh> Probably. 

Gerv
Created attachment 159314 [details] [diff] [review]
Dummy patch to put flags on for approval of this process
Comment on attachment 159314 [details] [diff] [review]
Dummy patch to put flags on for approval of this process

Requesting approval to relicense XPCOM sample code on Aviary and 1.7 branches.

Gerv
Attachment #159314 - Flags: approval1.7.x?
Attachment #159314 - Flags: approval-aviary?

Comment 16

14 years ago
Comment on attachment 159314 [details] [diff] [review]
Dummy patch to put flags on for approval of this process

a=asa for branches checkin.
Attachment #159314 - Flags: approval1.7.x?
Attachment #159314 - Flags: approval1.7.x+
Attachment #159314 - Flags: approval-aviary?
Attachment #159314 - Flags: approval-aviary+
Having checked, the mistake was on the 18th of April, after the 1.7 branch was
cut. So, there is no need for a reversion.

The licences in general are wrong on the 1.7 branch (and therefore the Aviary
branch) but that's just tough. We are in the middle of relicensing, and branches
cut during the process will have an arbitrary number of files relicensed.

Gerv
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.