For CCK Doc: permitted customizations to EULA file

RESOLVED WONTFIX

Status

CCK
CCK-Wizard
P3
normal
RESOLVED WONTFIX
19 years ago
16 years ago

People

(Reporter: robinf, Assigned: Kristi Fredrickson)

Tracking

other
Future
x86
Windows 95

Details

(Reporter)

Description

19 years ago
Please include the following in the section on manually customizing the EULA:

Under the terms of the Browser Customization Guidelines, CCK users must include 
the Netscape EULA (License.txt) with their CCK-generated builds. The only 
change you can make is that you can append additional text to the License.txt 
file. You cannot edit the existing text or rename this file.

Comment 1

19 years ago
will add this information.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED

Comment 2

19 years ago
This bug was vandalized by a clueless idiot.  I believe I have undone all of the
vandalism.

Updated

18 years ago
Target Milestone: --- → M18

Comment 3

18 years ago
changing target milestone to M18.

Updated

18 years ago
Assignee: ornduff → rudman
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW

Comment 4

18 years ago
reassigning to Steve Rudman

Comment 5

18 years ago
Accepting until we can find a replacement writer. Setting target to M20.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED

Comment 6

18 years ago
M18 to M20
Target Milestone: M18 → M20

Comment 7

18 years ago
Marking as Future
Target Milestone: M20 → Future

Comment 8

18 years ago
Reassigning to kristif.
Assignee: rudman → kristif
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW

Comment 9

17 years ago
changing QA contact to blee
QA Contact: bmartin → blee
(Assignee)

Updated

17 years ago
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED

Updated

17 years ago
QA Contact: blee → jimmyu

Comment 10

17 years ago
Updating QA contact to jimmyu for half of the CCK bugs, while Bom-shik is gone.

Comment 11

16 years ago
is this covered in the bdp agmt?
(Assignee)

Comment 12

16 years ago
I don't think that the documentation should attempt to repeat 
or paraphrase information that's in the license agreement or other legal 
documentation. Too much risk of introducing confusion or diluting the 
legal agreement. Marking this "RESOLVED/WONTFIX" 

Ariana, please confirm that this is the appropriate resolution so that QA can 
verify the fix.

Here's what's stated about the EULA within the BDP license agmt on the website:

Licensee shall ensure that the then-current end-user license agreement ("EULA") 
that Netscape provides for the Product is distributed with the Product, and that 
the end-user is bound by the terms and conditions of the EULA by click-through, 
shrink-wrap, or other end-user acceptance method as may be commonly used in the 
industry. Alternatively,Licensee and the end-user may enter a customized license 
agreement that contains terms and conditions consistent with the terms and 
conditions of this agreement and the EULA.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX

Comment 13

16 years ago
I am concerned about only having this appear in the site, and not in the
documentation that the user is more likely to be reviewing. Can we just repeat
the exact same text twice?
(Assignee)

Comment 14

16 years ago
Last I checked, customers were required to click a box on the site indicating 
that they'd read and agreed to the BDP agreement in order to gain access to CCK 
and the documentation, so I'm unclear on how they're more likely to see this 
license info in the doc than on the site. Has the BDP registration process 
changed?

Comment 15

16 years ago
Most users just click "I agree" without reading the text on the site. If they
are actually using the documentation to complete their work, they will more
likely run across it. It can't hurt to repeat the same text. 

Question- which text should be the one we use? The one on the site, or the one
in the documentation. The first statement is clear regarding editing. They seem
to state two different things- one allows you to edit it as long as it retains
the spirit of the EULA, and the other states that you can only append text, but
not edit. Does anyone know the source of these texts?
(Assignee)

Comment 16

16 years ago
I believe that the license is provided by the bizdev folks. Rob can probably 
tell you who these folks are -- I believe that he's received a draft of the 7.0 
license.

The discrepancy you noticed between the site-based license and the docs speaks 
directly to my point: It's counterproductive to keep multiple iterations of 
license agreements given the confusion it can cause regarding which is the 
"real" version of the license. There's a good reason that it's industry standard 
to keep the legal documentation, license agreements and the like separate from 
the user documentation, and one of the reasons is that when the license revs we 
don't want to have to update the user docs. 

Howsabout I update the docs to indicate something like this: 

"If you want to amend or alter the Netscape End User License Agreement, see [BDP 
license URL] for guidelines regarding permitted changes."

That way customers are alerted to the fact that they can't change the license 
file willy-nilly, and we don't risk dilution of the legal agreement by putting 
outdated info in the docs.

Comment 17

16 years ago
I second Kristi's recommendation- sounds like a plan. Let's make sure to include
Mary on this decision so she is aware of the need to maintain this part of the site.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.