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.
will add this information.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
This bug was vandalized by a clueless idiot. I believe I have undone all of the vandalism.
changing target milestone to M18.
reassigning to Steve Rudman
Accepting until we can find a replacement writer. Setting target to M20.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
M18 to M20
Target Milestone: M18 → M20
Marking as Future
Target Milestone: M20 → Future
Reassigning to kristif.
Assignee: rudman → kristif
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
changing QA contact to blee
QA Contact: bmartin → blee
Updating QA contact to jimmyu for half of the CCK bugs, while Bom-shik is gone.
is this covered in the bdp agmt?
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
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.