Closed Bug 794533 Opened 12 years ago Closed 6 years ago

Use a more allowing license for userChrome-example.css and userContent-example.css

Categories

(mozilla.org :: Licensing, task)

task
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED INACTIVE

People

(Reporter: bugzilla, Unassigned)

Details

The MPL2 conversion added an MPL license header to userChrome-example.css and userContent-example.css. As far as I know we normally use a more allowing license on code samples. I think we should do the same here.
Assignee: nobody → gerv
Component: General → Licensing
Product: Firefox → mozilla.org
Version: unspecified → other
These files:
https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/locales/en-US/profile/chrome/userChrome-example.css
https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/locales/en-US/profile/chrome/userContent-example.css
are very short, and consist mostly of comments. While I take your point that it would have been better to license them more liberally from the start, I have higher-priority things to do than track down everyone who's changed the file and request relicensing permission.

If someone else wants to do it, that's fine. Or they could provide "clean-roomed implementations" and replace the existing ones.

Gerv
Assignee: gerv → nobody
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → INACTIVE
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.