MCS: https://hg.mozilla.org/webtools/mcs is under the straight MPL 1.1, due to an oversight at the time of its creation. We should relicense it to straight MPL 2. In order to avoid the Incompatible Software clause, we need permission for the relicensing from all contributors who hold copyrights. Having looked through the logs, the non-employee contributors are: Rimas Kudelis <firstname.lastname@example.org> Jesper Kristensen <email@example.com> Tomer Cohen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Eduard Gamonal <email@example.com> I have already had agreement to relicense from Jesper and Rimas. I am just looking to get it from Tomer and Eduard. Gerv
Hi, I don't remember any contribution to the code by myself. If any, then yes it's ok. Sorry for the delay, I changed my e-mail address to firstname.lastname@example.org in all mozilla systems I was able to.
Anyone know how to contact Tomer? I've already emailed him twice, but had no reply... Gerv
Tomer says, by email: "Anyway, the changes I made are very minor. Feel free to do whatever you want with them." Gerv
So we're fine now, right?
Yep. I will sort out a patch shortly. Gerv
Created attachment 662965 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v.1 Who is the correct reviewer for this? Please check particularly that I've done the right thing in PHP files. Gerv
Gandalf would have been the right person in the past. But now, I'm not sure. This incarnation of MCS is practically dead anyway, as you can see from its changelog at http://hg.mozilla.org/webtools/mcs/summary . ReMo folks are creating a new incarnation and I think they're doing it from scratch (because they're adapting Sandstone now, not the old MCS theme). If Gandalf doesn't respond, you could probably ask Jesper for review, as he's the author of most of the recent patches. Either way, I'm wondering what Incompatible Software clause you referred to in Comment 0. Isn't MCS a self-contained project?
Rimas: if people are still using it, it's probably worth fixing. We should ask the ReMo team (anyone know who is on it?) to get it right from the start this time :-) > Either way, I'm wondering what Incompatible Software clause you referred to in Comment 0. > Isn't MCS a self-contained project? It's a feature of MPL2's upgrade mechanism relating to GPL compatibility. I wouldn't worry about it. :-) Gerv
(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #8) > Rimas: if people are still using it, it's probably worth fixing. We should > ask the ReMo team (anyone know who is on it?) to get it right from the start > this time :-) You can ask on this list: https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/community-local-sites .
Comment on attachment 662965 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v.1 mediawiki/theme/mcs/css/ phpbb/theme/mcs/theme/css/ Please don't add the license text to minified files. Add it only to the source files. (The minified files are not Source Code Form anyway) phpbb/theme/mcs/template/ I am not sure if these were MPL1 to begin with. Please check what the license on phpBB Prosilver is, and confirm if it is compatible with MPL2. I would also like to keep imported third party code with its original license, even if we might have heavily modified it. Also it looks like you have placed the license text above the doctype in most of these files, which would break the site layout.
Created attachment 684066 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v.2 I've reverted the changes in the 3 directories you named. Gerv
Comment on attachment 684066 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v.2 mediawiki/theme/mcs/js/jquery.domec.min-0.3.1.js phpbb/theme/mcs/theme/js/jquery.domec.min-0.3.1.js theme/html/js/jquery.domec.min-0.3.1.js wordpress/themes/mcs/js/jquery.domec.min-0.3.1.js i don't think the above files are MPL source code wordpress/themes/mcs/css/ie6.css wordpress/themes/mcs/css/ie7.css wordpress/themes/mcs/css/layout.css this is not source code form theme/html/index.html theme/html/index2.html Please move the license below the doctype I have not looked at files in drupal/ and joomla/ as I have not been involved in those.
Created attachment 685126 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v.3 (In reply to Jesper Kristensen from comment #12) > Please move the license below the doctype That's not necessary: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10924865/does-my-html5-doctype-have-to-be-on-the-very-first-line Other review comments addressed :-) Gerv
Created attachment 685209 [details] comment doctype test No. The stackoverflow thread talks about whitespace, not comments.
(In reply to Jesper Kristensen from comment #15) > Created attachment 685209 [details] > comment doctype test > > No. The stackoverflow thread talks about whitespace, not comments. Top answer says: "If you want the official answer, go to the W3C's official documents and read about the syntax there. Comments and spaces may come first. Here's the link: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/documents.html#conformant-documents." From section 3.3.1 of the linked document: "A conformant document in the HTML syntax must consist of the following parts, in the following order: 1. Optionally, a single U+FEFF BYTE ORDER MARK (BOM) character. 2. Any number of *comments* and space characters. 3. A doctype." Gerv
This conversation has gone off topic. I am happy to discuss the lack of spec compliance in IE somewhere else.
Jesper: if you are saying that despite this being spec compliant that it breaks IE, then fine, I can change it. It just required some coding, so I needed an actual reason. You may also want to comment in the Stack Overflow thread. Is there anything else, or is that an r+ if I fix that last thing? :-) Gerv
Comment on attachment 685126 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v.3 r+ except: - I have not looked at the drupal or joomla directories, as I do not know about those. - The order of the doctype and the license text in the two HTML files. (We can just change that manually, since it is only two files) - I have only reviewed technical part. I do not have knowledge about the legal part of this.
Checked in. Thank you :-) Gerv