License the shavar-plugin-blocklist's flashsubdoc.txt file in accordance to Disconnect.me license

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

task
RESOLVED FIXED
2 years ago
2 years ago

People

(Reporter: Felipe, Assigned: Felipe)

Tracking

Details

Attachments

(2 attachments, 1 obsolete attachment)

Our shavar-plugin-blocklist repo initially only had original content by us, and it was licensed as CC0. But now we're adding the contents of the Disconnect.me blocklist to it, so we must re-license it in accordance to their license.


https://github.com/mozilla-services/shavar-plugin-blocklist/blob/master/LICENSE
https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protection/blob/master/LICENSE
I assume we are still planning to publish these lists through Safe Browsing or some other similar mechanism? We can't ship GPLv3 code with Firefox. The only reason we can use the disconnect.me GPLv3 blocklists is that it seems clear from the intent of the licensor that they do not intend the copyleft to extend to products using their blocklists. If that was unclear, we couldn't use them even when downloaded.

Because our list is CC0, we can just combine it with the disconnect.me list, and file off the CC0 license, making the whole thing GPLv3. That's the point of CC0 - you don't need attribution or anything, and you can combine it with anything.

If we are maintaining the master list rather than disconnect.me, then we need to follow the terms of GPLv3 as regards how disconnect.me are acknowledged etc.

Do you need more info from me?

Gerv
Elvin: I can't see that bug, so please CC me if I need to :-)

Gerv
We were planning on including the list built-in (bug 1362149), but due to this issue that you mentioned, we'll only use these lists by download.

We are maintaining this list (with the original list + our additions), at 
https://github.com/mozilla-services/shavar-plugin-blocklist/

So do I just need to change the license file there to use the GPLv3?  How do I correctly acknowledge disconnect.me there?
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)
The disconnect.me blocklist in JSON form has a "license" key in the hash:

  "license": "Copyright 2010-2016 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/>.",

We should retain that, but change the copyright line to: Copyright 2010-2017 Disconnect, Inc. and others.

The wording in about:license#gpl-3.0 needs tweaking, probably to:

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. Firefox and such blocklists are separate and independent works as described in Sections 5 and 6 of this license. Our blocklist is based on one originally written by disconnect.me. 

That last sentence may not be legally necessary, but it is polite. If we do those two things, I think we've acknowledged them appropriately.

Gerv
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)
(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #4)
> The disconnect.me blocklist in JSON form has a "license" key in the hash:
> 
>   "license": "Copyright 2010-2016 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/>.",
> 
> We should retain that, but change the copyright line to: Copyright 2010-2017
> Disconnect, Inc. and others.

We don't use the JSON form on this repository, it uses a different format. Can I perhaps add this block to the README.md file, with the change that you mentioned?


> 
> The wording in about:license#gpl-3.0 needs tweaking, probably to:
> 
> 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. Firefox and such blocklists are separate and independent
> works as described in Sections 5 and 6 of this license. Our blocklist is
> based on one originally written by disconnect.me. 
> 
> That last sentence may not be legally necessary, but it is polite. If we do
> those two things, I think we've acknowledged them appropriately.

Ok
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)
Assignee: gerv → felipc
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
(In reply to :Felipe Gomes (needinfo me!) from comment #5)
> We don't use the JSON form on this repository, it uses a different format.
> Can I perhaps add this block to the README.md file, with the change that you
> mentioned?

Well then, let's have a standard plain-text GPLv3 LICENSE file:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
and please put "This list is based in part on one which is Copyright 2010-2016 Disconnect, Inc., to whom we are most grateful." in the README.md.

Gerv
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)
Thanks for the guidance. I'll submit patches with these changes for you to review.
Posted file Changes to the github repo (obsolete) —
Attachment #8877282 - Flags: review?(gerv)
And asking a question in advance: once you review this, can I go ahead and land these changes, or do I need approval from someone else first?
Attachment #8877283 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Comment on attachment 8877282 [details] [review]
Changes to the github repo

Hmm. I didn't realise before, but this repo seems to contain quite a few blocklists. I don't think we want to relicense all of them to GPLv3 do we? We should figure out a way of making GPLv3 apply only to the single list.

How about: rename LICENSE to LICENSE-CC0. Add a new LICENSE-GPL3. Explain which files are under which license in the README.md. Does that sound sensible?

Gerv
Attachment #8877282 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review-
Sounds good to me. The only file that has content from Disconnect.me is flashsubdoc.txt. I'll work on making the changes you suggested
Summary: License the shavar-plugin-blocklist repo in accordance to Disconnect.me license → License the shavar-plugin-blocklist's flashsubdoc.txt file in accordance to Disconnect.me license
After you review, can I go ahead and land these changes?
Attachment #8877282 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8877713 - Flags: review?(gerv)

Comment 14

2 years ago
Pushed by felipc@gmail.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/c9a931f0238d
Adjust about:license note about GPLv3. r=gerv. DONTBUILD
Keywords: leave-open
Comment on attachment 8877283 [details] [diff] [review]
Changes to the in-tree license.html

Hi Julien,

it seems that there's no approval-beta flags on this component, so I'm using the feedback flag for that.

Approval Request Comment
[Feature/Bug causing the regression]: This is part of the Flash as Click-to-Play rollout that will happen in Firefox 55.
[User impact if declined]: Adjustment in the license text (in about:license) will be missed
[Is this code covered by automated tests?]: no
[Has the fix been verified in Nightly?]: no
[Needs manual test from QE? If yes, steps to reproduce]: no
[List of other uplifts needed for the feature/fix]: none
[Is the change risky?]: no
[Why is the change risky/not risky?]: no impact on Firefox behavior, just a change in the text of about:license
[String changes made/needed]: While technically a string change, this is a non-localized page.
Attachment #8877283 - Flags: feedback?(jcristau)
Comment on attachment 8877283 [details] [diff] [review]
Changes to the in-tree license.html

a+ for beta55.
Attachment #8877283 - Flags: feedback?(jcristau) → feedback+
Whiteboard: [checkin-needed-beta]

Comment 18

2 years ago
bugherderuplift
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/1f88ee082098
Whiteboard: [checkin-needed-beta]
Comment on attachment 8877713 [details] [review]
Changes to the github repo, v2

r=gerv on github
Attachment #8877713 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 2 years ago
Keywords: leave-open
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.