You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@clerezza.apache.org by Henry Story <he...@bblfish.net> on 2011/09/01 18:54:07 UTC
Re: Mozile licensing / Creative Commons License
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 "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/
>
>