Accountapprovers, antispam, confirm, emeritus
4,925
edits
Changes
→Q&A
Revert the incorrect changes. I've tried hard to avoid changing the license on (or, more likely, adding new licenses to) inappropriate files, but if I screwed up somewhere, I'm afraid you'll just have to forgive me and change them back, by reverting that part of the patch and then checking in again. My sincere apologies. I'd appreciate it if you told me what went wrong so I can fix the script.
====There's some files in the tree which are still MPL 1.1! What do I do?====
There are a number of reasons this might be the case. If your case doesn't fit any of these reasons, let me know about it.
* You are looking at a tree I haven't relicensed yet (all of them, at the moment!)
* You are looking at a tree that is not slated for relicensing, such as a historical branch (see list above)
* You are looking at a tree which pulls from mozilla-central, but the changes have not worked their way through yet, e.g. mozilla-beta or mozilla-release
* It's code mastered in another Mozilla repo, e.g. NSPR or NSS, which live in CVS. It will be relicensed upstream and we'll get the benefit when we import a new release which contains the relicensing.
* It's code which comes from an upstream project but is nevertheless MPLed, e.g. cairo and libpixman. The decision to relicense in this case lies with the upstream project; but the MPL 1.1 gives us the right to use the code under MPL 2.
====There's a file that has no licence, and I think it should have an MPL 2 licence. What do I do?====
Well, if it's your area of the code and you know what's going on with that file, you can give it one. If it has no file extension, or a weird one, that's one reason it may well have been missed in the licence addition process. But if you are in any doubt, ask.
====Where can I read about the new licence?====
