Unlicensed files in fakeserver & unit tests (from mailnews)
Patrick Cloke
part of the fakeserver code (the unit tests) in mailnews. Unfortunately
not all of them have a license header. I talked to Standard8 on IRC
yesterday and he suggested I post here.
For example: maild.js [1] has a MPL license, but nntpd.js [2] does not
have a license.
All the files in the unit test directory [3] don't have licenses also
(although I'm only interested in test_nntpPassword.js,
test_getNewsMessage.js, head_server_setup.js, maybe a few others).
Are these files unlicensed or was the MPL header just never put on these
files (and nttpd.js above)? I'm hoping to use some of these files (or
bits of them) in an MPL project.
Any help would be appreciated.
-Patrick Cloke
[1]
http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/mailnews/test/fakeserver/maild.js
[2]
http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/mailnews/test/fakeserver/nntpd.js
[3] http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/mailnews/news/test/unit/
Gervase Markham
> There are a few files I was looking at using some code from that are
> part of the fakeserver code (the unit tests) in mailnews. Unfortunately
> not all of them have a license header. I talked to Standard8 on IRC
> yesterday and he suggested I post here.
>
> For example: maild.js [1] has a MPL license,
Actually, to be accurate, it has an MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-license.
> but nntpd.js [2] does not
> have a license.
As a rule of thumb, you should assume all files created by Mozilla
Project participants and checked into our SCM systems are tri-licensed
unless they specifically say otherwise. Sometimes people forget to add
the header.
> Are these files unlicensed or was the MPL header just never put on these
> files (and nttpd.js above)? I'm hoping to use some of these files (or
> bits of them) in an MPL project.
An MPLed project or a tri-licensed project?
Gerv
Patrick Cloke
> On 06/09/09 18:26, Patrick Cloke wrote:
>> There are a few files I was looking at using some code from that are
>> part of the fakeserver code (the unit tests) in mailnews. Unfortunately
>> not all of them have a license header. I talked to Standard8 on IRC
>> yesterday and he suggested I post here.
>>
>> For example: maild.js [1] has a MPL license,
>
> Actually, to be accurate, it has an MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-license.
I know it has the tri-license, but as I want to use it in an MPL project
the LGPL/GPL part doesn't really apply.
>> but nntpd.js [2] does not
>> have a license.
>
> As a rule of thumb, you should assume all files created by Mozilla
> Project participants and checked into our SCM systems are tri-licensed
> unless they specifically say otherwise. Sometimes people forget to add
> the header.
OK. Should I add a header to these files when using them to show where
they came from?
>> Are these files unlicensed or was the MPL header just never put on these
>> files (and nttpd.js above)? I'm hoping to use some of these files (or
>> bits of them) in an MPL project.
>
> An MPLed project or a tri-licensed project?
An MPL project.
-Patrick
Gervase Markham
> OK. Should I add a header to these files when using them to show where
> they came from?
If that makes it harder (patch-wise) to contribute changes back, then
no. If you have some reason to edit the Mozilla versions and check them
in, feel free to add an (accurate, which can require a little work)
header, and then use the new headered version.
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> On 07/09/09 15:27, Patrick Cloke wrote:
>> OK. Should I add a header to these files when using them to show where
>> they came from?
>
> If that makes it harder (patch-wise) to contribute changes back, then
> no.
Nothing I say here should be construed as telling you not to add
licensing information to files if you or your lawyer consider it in any
way important or necessary.
:-)
Gerv
Patrick Cloke
Thanks.
Would it be worth filing a bug about it? Even if I don't know the
correct heading?
-Patrick
Gervase Markham
> Would it be worth filing a bug about it? Even if I don't know the
> correct heading?
No; we know :-)
Gerv