The MPL2 conversion added an MPL license header to userChrome-example.css and userContent-example.css. As far as I know we normally use a more allowing license on code samples. I think we should do the same here.

These files: https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/locales/en-US/profile/chrome/userChrome-example.css https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/locales/en-US/profile/chrome/userContent-example.css are very short, and consist mostly of comments. While I take your point that it would have been better to license them more liberally from the start, I have higher-priority things to do than track down everyone who's changed the file and request relicensing permission. If someone else wants to do it, that's fine. Or they could provide "clean-roomed implementations" and replace the existing ones. Gerv