On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:01:59PM -0000, Pander wrote:
> License is multiple times in the .js source code, see
>
> ~/.<email address hidden>$ grep -riI mit *|grep -i license
> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:License: MIT License (see below)
> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:Modified: 20060620 - added MIT License
> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: * Released under the MIT license
Folks should really put a license file in the .xpi ... otherwise we
need to review each individual file and if there is any that doesnt
have an explicit license hint, its not sure.
We probably can remove preference .js files and install.rdf as well as
chrome.manifest from the list of files that require an explicit
copyright, but most authors forget license headers in .xul/xml files.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:01:59PM -0000, Pander wrote: content/ shared/ passwordmeter. js:License: MIT License (see below) content/ shared/ passwordmeter. js:Modified: 20060620 - added MIT License content/ foxmarks- utils.js: License: http:// www.opensource. org/licenses/ mit-license. php content/ foxmarks- utils.js: * Released under the MIT license
> License is multiple times in the .js source code, see
>
> ~/.<email address hidden>$ grep -riI mit *|grep -i license
> chrome/
> chrome/
> chrome/
> chrome/
Folks should really put a license file in the .xpi ... otherwise we
need to review each individual file and if there is any that doesnt
have an explicit license hint, its not sure.
We probably can remove preference .js files and install.rdf as well as
chrome.manifest from the list of files that require an explicit
copyright, but most authors forget license headers in .xul/xml files.
- Alexander