Closed Bug 1198586 Opened 5 years ago Closed 5 years ago

Add Disconnect's GPL notice to about:license

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Security, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
DOM: Security
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Milestone:
mozilla43
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
firefox42 --- fixed
firefox43 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: francois, Assigned: francois)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

MozReview Request: Bug 1198586 - Add Disconnect's GPL notice to about:license. r?gerv
40 bytes, text/x-review-board-request
gerv
: review+
Sylvestre
: approval-mozilla-aurora+
Details 
We use this GPL Disconnect list for Tracking Protection:

  https://services.disconnect.me/disconnect-plaintext.json

and it has this GPL header:

"Copyright 2010-2015 Disconnect, Inc.

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>."
Bug 1198586 - Add Disconnect's GPL notice to about:license. r?gerv
Attachment #8653214 - Flags: review?(gerv)
Hmm. Do we have a formal relationship with disconnect.me for this purpose? Do you know who in biz dev manages it?

Gerv
(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #2)
> Hmm. Do we have a formal relationship with disconnect.me for this purpose?

Yes, we're in the process of signing a contract with Disconnect.

> Do you know who in biz dev manages it?

Not sure who's the bizdev contact, but Elvin (CCed on this bug) is the legal contact. He's the one who asked for this.
BD contact is Chris Arnold, but he is sort of subbing for Jishnu. I am main point of contact on the deal-side.
Some particular guidance on how this should be done.

We should indicate that "This license may apply to blocklists downloaded during runtime for use with Private Browsing's tracking protection feature, as a separate and independent work as described in Section 5." (Please check with Javaun re: exactly what we should refer to the feature as.)

We should include the entire text of the GPL 3 (available at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html)

Ping me offline if you have questions, please. Thank you!
Flags: needinfo?(francois)
Javaun, Elvin suggests the following text for the license notice on "about:license":

"This license may apply to blocklists downloaded during runtime for use with Private Browsing's tracking protection feature, as a separate and independent work as described in Section 5."

Is that how we should refer to the feature?
Flags: needinfo?(francois) → needinfo?(jmoradi)
Attachment #8653214 - Flags: review?(gerv)
That's fine. There's a question of finality around the name,  and it it changes this might have to change. But Elvins guidance on name is as good as it gets right now
Flags: needinfo?(jmoradi)
(In reply to Javaun Moradi [:javaun] from comment #7)
> That's fine. There's a question of finality around the name,  and it it
> changes this might have to change. But Elvins guidance on name is as good as
> it gets right now

Actually, can I shorten that bit to "for use with the tracking protection feature" instead of "for use with Private Browsing's tracking protection feature"?

With that more generic wording, we won't have to revise this page (which I can almost guarantee we'll forget) when we expand the scope of TP.
Flags: needinfo?(jmoradi)
OK. francois: please can you produce a new patch for about:license, that:

* adds "GNU General Public License 3.0" below "GNU Lesser General Public License 3.0" in the list at the top
* adds the full license text at the appropriate place, marked up in the same style as the other GPL licenses, with the internal link to it working
* adds a preamble to the full text, as follows:

"This license does not apply to any of the code shipped with Firefox, but may apply to blocklists downloaded after installation for use with the tracking protection feature. Such blocklists are a separate and independent work as described in Section 5 of this license."

Thanks,

Gerv
(In reply to François Marier [:francois] from comment #8)
> Actually, can I shorten that bit to "for use with the tracking protection
> feature" instead of "for use with Private Browsing's tracking protection
> feature"?

Hi Francois. I like the suggestion. Before we change the text, we need to run it by Elvin to make sure it's ok.
Flags: needinfo?(jmoradi) → needinfo?(ellee)
Fine with me.
Flags: needinfo?(ellee)
Comment on attachment 8653214 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1198586 - Add Disconnect's GPL notice to about:license. r?gerv

Bug 1198586 - Add Disconnect's GPL notice to about:license. r?gerv
Attachment #8653214 - Flags: review?(gerv)
Comment on attachment 8653214 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1198586 - Add Disconnect's GPL notice to about:license. r?gerv

r=gerv.

Gerv
Attachment #8653214 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Comment on attachment 8653214 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1198586 - Add Disconnect's GPL notice to about:license. r?gerv

Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: 1198586
[User impact if declined]: Possible lack of compliance with the GPL?
[Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: Manual testing of about:license
[Risks and why]: Low since it's just adding an entry to an HTML page.
[String/UUID change made/needed]: None, we don't translate licenses.
Attachment #8653214 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
QA Contact: mwobensmith
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cf61909d89df
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
status-firefox43: --- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla43
Comment on attachment 8653214 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1198586 - Add Disconnect's GPL notice to about:license. r?gerv

We care about legal, taking it.
Attachment #8653214 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Hi Sylvestre, can we target 42 for this change? (This relates to Polaris.)
Yep, 42 is currently in aurora. :)
Target Milestone: mozilla43 → mozilla42
I know this is confusing but Target Milestone is the version in which it first landed.
Target Milestone: mozilla42 → mozilla43
You're right, it's confusing. I'll just leave it be. :) THanks!
Is it possible to revise this slightly to make clear who/where it's coming from in our laundry list?

Right now we have link text of "GNU General Public License 3.0"; can we change this to "GNU General Public License 3.0 (Disconnect, Inc. tracking protection lists only)" or something similar?
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Flags: needinfo?(francois)
Resolution: FIXED → ---
(In reply to Elvin Lee [:ellee] from comment #23)
> Right now we have link text of "GNU General Public License 3.0"; can we
> change this to "GNU General Public License 3.0 (Disconnect, Inc. tracking
> protection lists only)" or something similar?

We also include a Swedish dictionary that's under the LGPLv3. Given that the LGPLv3 is not a standalone license, but rather a set of extra permissions on top of GPLv3, our copy of the GPL is not just there for the Disconnect lists. We're required to ship a copy of both the LGPLv3 and the GPLv3 with the Swedish dictionary.

Isn't the current text clear enough that it's just for the TP lists?

"This license does not apply to any of the code shipped with Firefox, but may apply to blocklists downloaded after installation for use with the tracking protection feature. Such blocklists are a separate and independent work as described in Section 5 of this license."
Flags: needinfo?(francois)
Yes, it's clear but it would be good to also indicate the copyright holder (Disconnect, Inc.).

Perhaps revise to say:

This license does not apply to any of the code shipped with Firefox, but may apply to Disconnect.me blocklists downloaded after installation for use with the tracking protection feature. Firefox and such blocklists are separate and independent works as described in Section 5 of this license.
(In reply to François Marier [:francois] from comment #24) 
> We also include a Swedish dictionary that's under the LGPLv3. 

Just to confirm: we ship this as part of the Swedish build?

(In reply to Elvin Lee [:ellee] from comment #23)
> Is it possible to revise this slightly to make clear who/where it's coming
> from in our laundry list?
> 
> Right now we have link text of "GNU General Public License 3.0"; can we
> change this to "GNU General Public License 3.0 (Disconnect, Inc. tracking
> protection lists only)" or something similar?

For an entry in a table of contents, that's pretty darn ugly :-)

What confusion are you concerned about, in the mind of whom? If someone is making decisions about how Firefox licensing works based on simply skimming the list of licenses we print, then they will have other bigger problems...

Gerv
Currently we don't mention the name of the copyright holder anywhere, which is what I would like to add.
I filed bug 1210192 for this update.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago → 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.