Re: README.ICECAT: LPPL -> LGPL

[Nic Alvaro]

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 13:45 +0100, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> I am not sure the build instructions contained in README.ICECAT will be
> useful for users of a binary tarball.

I see how build instructions could confuse people. You could remove the
build instructions part for binary distributions. Then how about replace
README.txt with README.ICECAT since README.txt directs the reader to
Mozilla Firefox? At least remove README.txt, if you don't want to do
that.

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 09:32 +0100, Christophe Jarry wrote:
> If you mean that LICENSE only contains the MPL, I agree, but most files have 
> the
> following header:
Yeah I guess the license notices are fine. In addition, the "About GNU
Icecat" directs the user to the licenses of the software that are used,
so I guess it is okay. But I think we should go over a few of the issues
in that page.

The about:licensing page states the below which I am sure GNU would not
agree with.

"All of the source code to this product is available under licenses
which are both free and open source"

It includes this notice:
Portions of the OS/2 and Windows Mobile versions of this software are
copyright ©1996-2002 The FreeType Project. All rights reserved.

It has the optional notice Nullsoft Scriptable Install System, which
seems to be under the Common Public License 1.0 and is incompatible with
the GNU GPL. This is for installing on Windows.

Why not add a space between "Mozilla Firefox.Licensing information" in
"About GNU Icecat?"

That's about all I can see now.