Re: Must ALL or SOME source code dists have license notice in each file?

Gervase Markham wrote:
> 
> I would say that the XUL and JS, as shipped with the preview release, is 
> not the preferred form for making modifications. For example, the 
> Windows build has all the MAC OS X-specific bits stripped out by the 
> same preprocessor which removes the license blocks.

Yes, definitely the *.jar files are not "source" code, they are processed
and packaged. It's confusing that it looks like source, though. Perhaps it
could be easily solved by putting a copyright/license file at the top of
each archive, or a copyright comment in the zip archive itself (zip -z "This
file copyright Mozilla Foundation. Source available under the MPL at...").

I don't know how many people would notice an archive comment, an obvious
explanatory file at the top level might be best. Double-plus good because
we'd then have a place to describe the copyright and trademark status of the
images in the file.

-Dan Veditz