You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@clerezza.apache.org by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@gmuer.ch> on 2011/08/10 15:47:17 UTC
Mozile licensing / Creative Commons License
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?
Cheers,
Reto
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James A. Overton <ja...@overton.ca>
Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Mozile
To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@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" <ja...@overton.ca> wrote:
Re: Mozile licensing / Creative Commons License
Posted by "James A. Overton" <ja...@overton.ca>.
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 <he...@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 <ja...@overton.ca>
>>> Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Mozile
>>> To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@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" <ja...@overton.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
Re: Mozile licensing / Creative Commons License
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
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 <he...@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 <ja...@overton.ca>
>> Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: Mozile
>> To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@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" <ja...@overton.ca> wrote:
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
Re: Mozile licensing / Creative Commons License
Posted by Henry Story <he...@bblfish.net>.
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 <ja...@overton.ca>
> Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Mozile
> To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@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" <ja...@overton.ca> wrote:
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/