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
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
Licence waiver: do whatever you want with my checkin to winEmbed.cpp as long as it does not require action from me. Bernd (cvs: email@example.com)
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. firstname.lastname@example.org is responsible for that patch. Adding him.
> 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. email@example.com 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
Comment on attachment 159314 [details] [diff] [review] Dummy patch to put flags on for approval of this process a=asa for branches checkin.
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.