incubator-clerezza-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James A. Overton" <ja...@overton.ca>
Subject Re: Mozile licensing / Creative Commons License
Date Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:59:10 GMT
Hi Reto and all,

I've updated the license file for Mozile 0.8 in our CVS:

http://www.mozdev.org/source/browse/mozile/www/0.8/LICENSE

All the best,

James


On 2011-09-05, at 12:32 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:

> Thanks Henry for finding this. This means that with mozile apache
> licensed we can undo the removing of mozile and have and have wysiwyg
> editing back in the discobits editor.
> 
> @James: could you add an adapted license notice to the source repository?
> 
> Cheers,
> Reto
> 
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On 10 Aug 2011, at 15:47, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> James has agreed to release license mozile under the ASL.
>>> 
>>> As you can read in his mail some icons are licensed under the Creative
>>> Commons Attribution 2.5 license. In
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html I don't see the CC licenses
>>> listed.
>>> 
>>> Doe anyone know if these icons can be included?
>> 
>> They are listed here
>> 
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> 
>> This is the resource that the 3party points to as the official version.
>> 
>> CC seems to be accepted there.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Reto
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: James A. Overton <james@overton.ca>
>>> Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Mozile
>>> To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Reto,
>>> 
>>> I'm ready to make the licensing changes, but I want to check the
>>> details with you first. I presume that it's Mozile 0.8 that you want
>>> to use -- if not, let me know. Mozile 0.8 is currently distributed
>>> under any one of three licenses
>>> (http://mozile.mozdev.org/0.8/LICENSE). My thought was to simply add
>>> Apache 2.0 as a fourth available license. Since I wrote all of the
>>> Mozile 0.8 code myself, I can make that change.
>>> 
>>> However there are some icons included in the Mozile 0.8 distribution
>>> from the Silk icon set, which are licensed under Creative Commons
>>> Attribution 2.5 license
>>> (http://mozile.mozdev.org/0.8/images/silk/COPYING). Is that acceptable
>>> for your purposes? If not, you'll have to replace them with something
>>> else, I guess.
>>> 
>>> I don't know anything about this hallo-editor, but Mozile does not
>>> work the same as contentEditable editors. ContentEditable started in
>>> old versions of IE and presents some basic editing commands to produce
>>> HTML 3 era markup. Mozile uses standard DOM commands. (Sometimes
>>> Mozile uses contentEditable just to get an editing cursor.) In theory,
>>> Mozile should be more powerful and flexible. In practice, the Mozile
>>> code always had bugs, and by now it's pretty old.
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2011-07-15, at 14:31 , Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi James
>>>> 
>>>> That's good news!
>>>> 
>>>> I noticed the problem right before the planed release, so for this very first
release (currently being voted upon) i just removed mozile (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLEREZZA-608).
I opened a new issue (CLEREZZA-609) to re-allow inline editing.
>>>> 
>>>> Another editor I wanted to look at  is henry bergius hallo-editor.  A minimalistic
conetntEditable based editor. Do you happen to know how the different approaches compare?
>>>> 
>>>> Hope you're enjoying your travelling.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Reto
>>>> On Jul 15, 2011 3:19 PM, "James A. Overton" <james@overton.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message