Add licencing information

[KerSp66zQAx]

Brief is released under the MPL 1.1, as is mentioned in its AMO page, but no license notice is found next to the source code, as required. Neither any new build shared in the brief forums.

I want to add this, and, at the same time, to upgrade to the MPL 2.0
It's possible, as is mentioned in this FAQ
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/Revision-FAQ.html#upgrading-someone-elses-code

This allows us not to care about the historic contributors list (yeah, some mentions are in the install manifest), and the license header is a lot shorter, so it hardly affects the code's visibility.

I could to do this using the tool used by to upgrade automatically the license info of bugzilla, changing the license text as the previous link requires:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680131

For now, I wanted to mention this, at least. Opinions?

Other related links:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html
https://wiki.mozilla.org/MPL_Upgrade

[FunkMonkey]

yes. sounds good to me. This way we are on the safe side. The code on mozdev had MPL by definition (though it should probably have had the header in the files for being safe), but here on github, we should definitely distribute the code with a proper license ...

thanks

[cxcaixinster]

I believe it's a good idea to add license information.

A question. The license is suitable for code of Brief. Is it suitable for code of the website?
Or we just move the code of website into a new place (like a new branch) and leave the source code of extension with license information?

BTW, maybe current branches are a bit confusing...

[FunkMonkey]

I actually just wanted to open an issue for the website.

[edit] moved the discussion about the www folder to this https://github.com/FunkMonkey/brief/issues/4.

yes. the branches are confusing. I basically did this, because we have two different version. KerSp66zQAx is working on the 1.5 branch of Brief, but someone else may go on working on 1.6. With the previous branches, it would seem as "master" (which is 1.6) is the stable branch where development is going on, whereas BRIEF_1_5_BRANCH / master_1_5 will be. That is why I introduced two master branches ...

[KerSp66zQAx]

Please fill other issue for the website discussion. The licensing stuff can to done after to manage that.

[KerSp66zQAx]

I added in my repo the license stuff to the dev-1.5 branch: KerSp66zQAx/brief@ad47cabdb8 (and all the other pending changes).

I will add this to the 1.6 branch too (with some stuff that I will port from 1.5), and then I will do the pull request here.