On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org
> On 05/09/14 10:01, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> I support this reasoning and support a policy that puts tests we write
>> under CC0. I think we should still permit importing tests that are
>> more restrictively licensed from elsewhere
> As long as they meet our license policies, sure. (For code which is not
> shipped, the official policy is simply "must be under an OSI license",
> and the unofficial policy is also "should not cause us licensing or
> administrative hassle".)
>> and allow people who write
>> tests as work-for-hire for the Mozilla Group to contribute to more
>> restrictively licensed upstream test repos under the licenses of those
> Again, if open source, no problem; if not, we'd have to consider on a
> case-by-case basis. We'd be more likely to establish an independent test
The suites I immediately had in mind are the htm5lib test suite (MIT
so OSI approved) and various W3C test suites, which are dual licensed
under OSI-approved 3-clause BSD and non-OSI-approved W3C Test Suite
Since CC0 and permissive licenses, including BSD, permit proprietary
forks, I don't see explicitly allowing the W3C to license the tests
also under the W3C Test Suite License is worse than allowing them to
do so less explicitly via CC0 or BSD.
>> I think it would make sense for tests that have been written as
>> work-for-hire to the Mozilla Group or have otherwise had their
>> copyright transferred to the Mozilla Foundation prior to the policy
>> change date to be relicensed by the Mozilla Foundation under CC0. That
>> way, if a test predated the policy change but the logs showed it was
>> authored by an Mozilla employee or contractor, you could treat it as
>> CC0 without further bureaucracy.
> I'm happy to do that if all it means is stating it as a policy, but I
> don't have time to go and do the research and change license headers.
I didn't mean to suggest anyone would do the research proactively.
> We can simply say: "if you do the research on a file with no header and
> find it qualifies, you can use it under CC0. If you can't be bothered,
> you must assume it's MPL2."
This is what I meant.