Fix MoCo text in xpfe about:license

VERIFIED FIXED

Status

VERIFIED FIXED
12 years ago
12 years ago

People

(Reporter: alqahira, Assigned: alqahira)

Tracking

({verified1.8.1.2})

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(4 attachments, 5 obsolete attachments)

1.28 KB, patch
csthomas
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
3.11 KB, patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
3.24 KB, patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
32.05 KB, patch
reed
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
For bug 343220, Camino needs to remove the MoCo text at the beginning of the xpfe about:license.  Since neither SeaMonkey nor Camino are MoCo products, we both want this change AFAICT (although I don't know if SeaMonkey is getting a MoFo EULA or not).

Filing this bug to make the actual change, but we need new text (and, more importantly, a new URL for the non-MoCo EULAs (see bug 343220 comment 10 and 11), so depends on bug 343220 for the new text/URL.
Chris, Robert: Does this change make sense to you? Note that it would only affect releases off the branch since once SeaMonkey (and presumably Camino) move to toolkit, we'll be pulling the other license file. So, this is an interim fix until we decide how to handle this on the trunk.
Do we want to block 1.8.1-based releases on this?
OS: Mac OS X 10.3 → All
Hardware: Macintosh → All
(In reply to comment #2)
> Do we want to block 1.8.1-based releases on this?
> 

I would say "yes", but since we've been shipping with the MoCo license, I'm not sure it'd be required. Our final release of 1.1 (which isn't expected for a while and is off the 1.8.1 branch) will be blocked by this. But our alpha won't (which is scheduled for the next couple of weeks).

Comment 4

12 years ago
I actually think that the general license text should always refer to "Mozilla Foundation", and MoCo products should be the exception that does that differently...
The CVS tree is not owned by MoCo but is a general MoFo tree, MoCo is just "allowed" to have some of their stuff in it as well ;-)

Anyways, I'm very much for changing the 1.8 version the say "MoFo" instead of "MoCo" :)
Yes, let's update this. I know we need a new URL; we may be able to get one at mozillafoundation.org, which might make most sense (as it's the parallel of mozilla.com). However, that website is still under development. I'll get in touch with Zak, who's in charge of it, and ask him.

Gerv
Gerv, do you have any follow up to this? Have you heard back from Zak?
Any news from Zak on the url to use here?  SeaMonkey has already shipped their beta, iirc, so time is growing short.
Let's not let the mozillafoundation.org stuff block this; we can always update it later. Let's get a EULA on mozilla.org for now. Sorry for causing delay by suggesting it.

Gerv
Where on mozilla.org should it go? Gerv, is this something you're going to take care of? If not, can you give guidance on where it should go so we can get it up?

Originally, the EULAs were available on the Foundation licensing page [1]. Now those links direct to mozilla.com.

It'd be nice to get this taken care of before our next Camino release or even before the SeaMonkey release...

[1] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html
If http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/eula/ is available, I'm sure that would be fine for now.

Gerv
That looks available to me.

So is this just a matter of copying the EULA from mozilla.com and doing a s/Corporation/Foundation? Can I get a webmonkey up for the challenge?
(In reply to comment #11)
> That looks available to me.
> 
> So is this just a matter of copying the EULA from mozilla.com and doing a
> s/Corporation/Foundation? Can I get a webmonkey up for the challenge?

Camino still ships with EULA v1.1; whether that's a bug or not, I don't know.

We'll also need a new line of text for about:license before we can patch it.

Currently it reads:

Official binaries of this product released by the Mozilla Corporation are made available under the corresponding EULA.

Is the best course of action just s/released by the Mozilla Corporation/ and s/EULA/Mozilla Foundation EULA/ ?

Or, since this file ends up in embed.jar (and Camino can override it), we could also do something like:

Official binaries of this product released by the SeaMonkey Project are made available under the Mozilla Foundation EULA.

(and we can s/SeaMonkey/Camino in our embed-replacements step)

You should say "Mozilla Foundation"; I suspect the Seamonkey Project, which is not a legal entity, can't enter into agreements of this kind.

You should use whatever the latest version of the EULA is. And you'll need to post a set of diffs here so the changes from the Corporation version are recorded.

Thanks :-)

Gerv
Hrm, I thought I submitted this comment last night :(

> If http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/eula/ is available, I'm sure that would be
> fine for now.

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/EULA/ is the URL used by about:license right now (which .htaccess redirects to MoCo); do we really want to depend on case-sensitivity on the web server for the distinction[*]?  (And sorry for not catching that sooner....)

[*] (and if you pull a webtree on a Mac, for instance, those will do bad things to each other, since by default HFS Extended is case-preserving but case-insensitive....)
Clearly that counts as "not available" :-) Let's use /legal/eula/, then - that matches the MoCo URL.

Gerv
Created attachment 249589 [details] [diff] [review]
xpfe/global/resources/content/license.html change

If no one objects, I'll go ahead and take this bug.  The patch for about:license (with Gerv-vetted text and URL) is attached, and I can tackle the web stuff later in the week.

Chris, Robert, I'm not sure who needs to r/sr this change; I've tagged Chris to start, but please re-assign as appropriate.
Assignee: general → alqahira
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #249589 - Flags: review?(cst)
Comment on attachment 249589 [details] [diff] [review]
xpfe/global/resources/content/license.html change

1) The url in the patch is a 404
2) I was under the impression our seamonkey binaries were trilicensed, but maybe I'm wrong.
Comment on attachment 249589 [details] [diff] [review]
xpfe/global/resources/content/license.html change

>-    <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/EULA/">the corresponding 
>+    <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/legal/eula/">the corresponding 

Wait, I thought we were going with www.mozilla.org/legal/eula/... It doesn't really matter to me, but there is already a /legal/ dir that can be used.

Gerv: Thoughts?
Since the first proposal was to be a mozillafoundation.org URL, and the second was in the Foundation sub-site (mozilla.org/foundation/foo), I took the last suggestion to mean "tack /legal/eula/ onto the Foundation sub-site and keep this in Foundation-land" rather than "treat / as it is always treated in UNIX-land".  Sorry if I misunderstood.

As for the URL being 404, that's where the "I can tackle the web stuff later in the week" comment came in ;)  I just thought it'd be better to get a patch up for xpfe sooner rather than later to ensure everyone was on the same page.

As for the actual license of binaries, in bug 343220 comment 3 Frank notes that apps for which MoFo owns a trademark must have the EULA; I understood that work was being done on securing the SeaMonkey trademark, but I don't know the status of that at all.

If it turns out Camino and SeaMonkey are in different categories, we (Camino) can just fix/override the license text in our embed-replacements stuff....

Comment 20

12 years ago
Chris, I think the binaries are implicitely MPL-only, just like the the Mozilla suite binaries were, the full originaly code itself is tri-licensed though.
Yes, I meant mozilla.org/legal/eula.

Binaries under a EULA are under a EULA - they are allowed to be because of the MPL's "alternate binary licence" provisions.

Let me know if anything else needs clearing up. :-)

Gerv
Comment on attachment 249589 [details] [diff] [review]
xpfe/global/resources/content/license.html change

Cancelling review request because the URL is clearly wrong ;)

The remaining question, at least as I understand it, is whether SeaMonkey binaries *are* under any EULA or not, and how that affects the text of the sentence we want to change.
Attachment #249589 - Flags: review?(cst)
Created attachment 250082 [details] [diff] [review]
license.html with the correct path

This is still operating under the assumption that we can use shared language here for Camino and SeaMonkey....
Attachment #249589 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 250083 [details] [diff] [review]
first draft of website changes

This adds legal/eula/index.html (which mirrors rv 1.5 of foundation/eula.html with an added note pointing to MoCo for Corp products, in case someone got lost and ended up here) and {camino|seamonkey}-en.{txt|html} (again under the assumption SeaMonkey will get a EULA; if so, the work is already done ;)).

It also changes foundation/licensing.html, since the license on the .dmg points to that page for licensing info (and we may as well make it correct anyway); the changes make the existing mentions Corp mentions and then "duplicate" them for Foundation.  I also added Camino to the list of claimed trademarks there, since Camino users will see the page and Camino is a registered trademark.
Created attachment 250084 [details] [diff] [review]
Reference diff - EULA 1.1 for Camino

For reference only, a diff showing the changes to EULA v1.1 (based on the version for Firefox at foundation/eula/firefox-en.txt) for Camino.  I can do one on the html file, too, if you don't trust my find/replace skills :)
Created attachment 250085 [details] [diff] [review]
Reference diff - EULA 1.1 for SeaMonkey

Same as above but for SeaMonkey; reference diff only.

I'm not requesting review again/yet on the two patches until I hear a definitive answer about SeaMonkey's trademark/EULA status, but suggestions/comments/corrections in the proposed changes welcome from licensing, webmokey, and product folks alike.

Comment 27

12 years ago
To answer the question about the SeaMonkey trademark status: The Mozilla Foundation has formally filed trademark applications for the SeaMonkey word mark (i.e., the term "SeaMonkey" itself) and the SeaMonkey logo. They have not yet been approved as registered trademarks (this takes some time to happen), so they should be treated as non-registered trademarks (e.g., using "TM") for now. Given that we're treating the SeaMonkey word mark and logo as trademarks, I think it's appropriate to start using a EULA for SeaMonkey binaries.
Comment on attachment 250082 [details] [diff] [review]
license.html with the correct path

Going with Chris again on the xpfe license.html change....
Attachment #250082 - Flags: review?(cst)
Comment on attachment 250083 [details] [diff] [review]
first draft of website changes

r=me

I only have two questions: 
 1. Is it common to not have new lines at the end of web files? (I'm not sure if it matters either way.)
 2. Some translations of MoCo EULAs already exist  at m.c/legal/eula and they aren't listed on m.o/legal/eula as you say they will be.

#2 probably needs fixing. #1 is more for my own information.

I'm targeting Reed for a second review/peer review.
Attachment #250083 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler)
Attachment #250083 - Flags: review?(reed)
Attachment #250083 - Flags: review+
(In reply to comment #29)
> I only have two questions: 
>  1. Is it common to not have new lines at the end of web files? (I'm not sure
> if it matters either way.)

Those EOFs are the same as each of the original files I copied, but I'm happy to change these.

>  2. Some translations of MoCo EULAs already exist  at m.c/legal/eula and they
> aren't listed on m.o/legal/eula as you say they will be.

No, I say that translations of the Foundation (Camino/SeaMonkey) EULAs will be listed, and there are none.  If that's confusing, we can tweak the text or move that note.
(In reply to comment #30)
> No, I say that translations of the Foundation (Camino/SeaMonkey) EULAs will be
> listed, and there are none.  If that's confusing, we can tweak the text or move
> that note.

It's up to Reed, but I'd say move them somewhere that makes more sense.

Comment on attachment 250083 [details] [diff] [review]
first draft of website changes

(In reply to comment #30)
> No, I say that translations of the Foundation (Camino/SeaMonkey) EULAs will be
> listed, and there are none.  If that's confusing, we can tweak the text or move
> that note.

html/legal/eula/index.html seems too Mozilla-general. I think you should say Mozilla Foundation instead of Mozilla. Also, I agree with ss on the translation text. It makes it seem as if translations of the Firefox and Thunderbird EULAs will be posted on that page. Maybe the better differentiation between MoCo and MoFo EULAs will help that?

I also think that html/foundation/licensing.html should have proper &reg; and &trade; markers after each trademark.

I also don't mind the lack of end lines for the .txt files if it's just a copy of the Firefox one, but I do mind html/legal/eula/index.html not having an end line. Basically, .txt files can either be with or without (I prefer with end line, but I'll take either) and .html files should always have an end line. By "end line", I mean "newline at end of file".
Attachment #250083 - Flags: review?(reed) → review-
I actually have a second question regarding the SeaMonkey EULA which is directed at Chris or Robert from the SeaMonkey team and possibly Gerv or Frank from the Foundation.

Should the SeaMonkey EULA say "SEAMONKEY BROWSER"? Since SeaMonkey is more than a browser, should the phrase "browser" instead be something like "suite" or "internet suite"? It didn't occur to me reading it the first time, but seems needed now.

For the record, the Thunderbird EULA uses the term "... CERTAIN THUNDERBIRD E-MAIL FUNCTIONALITY..." SeaMonkey incorporates both those (and more), so something along the lines of "internet suite" would make sense to me.

Comments?

Comment 34

12 years ago
"internet suite" is what we're using in multiple cases, so that seems to be the right choice here.
Created attachment 250395 [details] [diff] [review]
Reference diff (v2) - EULA 1.1 for SeaMonkey

Revised reference diff for the SeaMonkey EULA with "SeaMonkey Intenet Suite"
Attachment #250085 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 250397 [details] [diff] [review]
website changes, v2

reed and ss and I talked about the layout and thought we'd give a <h1>Moz <h2>MoCo <h2>MoFo <h3>Camino <h3>SeaMonkey layout a try.

The patch should fix all of reed's other comments, the SeaMonkey Internet Suite in the EULAs, and make the trademark list sync with the "Accompanying Symbol" list on foundation/trademarks/policy.html (plus XUL, which was on licensing.html to begin with).  It also attempts to impose a somewhat-sane and fairly-consistent line-length on foundation/licensing.html and the new legal/eula/index.html
Attachment #250083 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #250397 - Flags: review?(reed)
Created attachment 250398 [details] [diff] [review]
website changes, v3

Second <h2> should be MoFo, of course :oops:
Attachment #250397 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #250398 - Flags: review?(reed)
Attachment #250397 - Flags: review?(reed)
Comment on attachment 250398 [details] [diff] [review]
website changes, v3

+<p>Our code is free, but we do strictly enforce our trademark rights, we must, in order to keep them valid.

That sentence doesn't make sense.
Attachment #250398 - Flags: review?(reed) → review-
Replace the comma after "rights" with a semicolon.

Gerv
That's existing text, but that second comma should be a semicolon ("rights; we must") in order to be correct.  Is that good enough, or do you want to completely overhaul the sentence?
Are you asking me? I've already said I'm happy with replacing the comma with a semicolon, as I said.

Gerv
Sorry, I meant reed (I missed your comment, Gerv), who is the dissenting reviewer of record :)
If Gerv is happy with using a semicolon there, I'm happy.
Created attachment 251199 [details] [diff] [review]
website changes, v4
Attachment #250398 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #251199 - Flags: review?(reed)
Comment on attachment 251199 [details] [diff] [review]
website changes, v4

r=reed
Attachment #251199 - Flags: review?(reed) → review+
Checking in html/foundation/licensing.html;
/cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/foundation/licensing.html,v  <--  licensing.html
new revision: 1.21; previous revision: 1.20
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/camino-en.html,v
done
Checking in html/legal/eula/camino-en.html;
/cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/camino-en.html,v  <--  camino-en.html
initial revision: 1.1
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/camino-en.txt,v
done
Checking in html/legal/eula/camino-en.txt;
/cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/camino-en.txt,v  <--  camino-en.txt
initial revision: 1.1
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/index.html,v
done
Checking in html/legal/eula/index.html;
/cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/index.html,v  <--  index.html
initial revision: 1.1
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/seamonkey-en.html,v
done
Checking in html/legal/eula/seamonkey-en.html;
/cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/seamonkey-en.html,v  <--  seamonkey-en.html
initial revision: 1.1
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/seamonkey-en.txt,v
done
Checking in html/legal/eula/seamonkey-en.txt;
/cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/legal/eula/seamonkey-en.txt,v  <--  seamonkey-en.txt
initial revision: 1.1
done

Please make sure everything looks ok once it makes it to stage/production.
Comment on attachment 250082 [details] [diff] [review]
license.html with the correct path

Sam suggested we try Neil for sr on this.
Attachment #250082 - Flags: superreview?(neil)

Updated

12 years ago
Attachment #250082 - Flags: superreview?(neil) → superreview+
Chris, Robert: what sort of approval (if any) do we need to land this on the 1.8 branch (and can someone land this on the trunk and branch when things are all set)?
Attachment #250082 - Flags: approval-seamonkey1.1.1+
Attachment #250082 - Flags: approval-seamonkey1.1-
Attachment #250082 - Flags: approval-seamonkey1.0.8+
license.html portion checked in on trunk and MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 12 years ago
Keywords: fixed1.8.1.2
Resolution: --- → FIXED
FYI, the change isn't relevant on 1.8.0 branch (straight MPL for about:license there).

Has anyone filed a bug on making sure toolkit's license.html gets work done so it can handle this, or something like Robert mentioned in comment 4?  (It seems like non-mozilla.org projects building on the code shouldn't get a license.html that mentions official binaries from MoCo/MoFo and their EULAs by default; they should really get a non-branded license and we should all "override" it to get our EULA/official binaries line....)

Thanks everyone for all the help on this!
I went ahead and filed Bug 368091 on the toolkit license.
Bug verified on Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2pre) Gecko/20070207 BonEcho/2.0.0.2pre.

Keywords: fixed1.8.1.2 → verified1.8.1.2
Tony, this bug can't be verified using a BonEcho/Firefox build. It only fixes XPFE things and can, thus, only be verified using a recent build of SeaMonkey or Camino (which I don't happen to have on hand).

Removing the verified keyword and adding back the fixed one.
Keywords: verified1.8.1.2 → fixed1.8.1.2
hi samuel, would you be able to verify this bug?  I thought checking the license file would be enough.   Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
hi samuel, would you be able to verify this bug?  I thought checking the license file would be enough.   Any help would be greatly appreciated!
oops, can someone return this back to "resolved fixed"?  i cant seem to change the state.  Thanks
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 12 years ago12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Verified using Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2pre) Gecko/20070207 SeaMonkey/1.1 on branch and Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.9a3pre) Gecko/20070207 SeaMonkey/1.5a on trunk.

Additionally, Smokey confirms this fix in a recent Camino branch build.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Keywords: fixed1.8.1.2 → verified1.8.1.2
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.