Apparently some people imagine that some of the posts on planet could reflect on the Mozilla Foundation and/or Corporation in a negative and/or unintended way. This seems reasonable to me, and I therefor propose that there should be a small disclaimer on the planet.mozilla.org main page stating that the blog posts are the responsibility of the owners of the linked blogs, and not the Mozilla Foundation/Corporation themselves. The exact text could be subject of debate, I guess, I don't have a very strong opinion on it, as long as it clarifies that the contents aren't an expression of official guidelines/opinions etc.
There may be more than a disclaimer needed. Not sure how all this non-profit stuff works, but since planet is hosted at planet.mozilla.org... what if someone were to post something political in support/against a candidate. Could this in any way/shape/form impact non-profit status?
So a bunch of people who know lots more about this stuff than I do have now been CC-ed - does anyone want to take a stab at answering the questions Robert asked in comment #1, and/or proposing a concrete way this bug should move forward? For reference, planet ubuntu has the following all the way at the bottom: Blog entries aggregated on this page are owned by, and represent the opinion of the author. [Copyright stuff about Ubuntu and other trademarks] <link: Feedback> — <link: Legal> The latter linking to a general legal disclaimer of responsibility etc: http://www.ubuntu.com/legal Do people think that kind of thing will be enough for planet.m.o as well?
Any progress on this bug? Asa?
I think we should just replicate what planet ubuntu has. I'll talk with the Mozilla legal team and see what they think. We certainly don't hurt ourselves going with what Ubuntu does while we wait for more input though.
How about just a note at the top? Seems weird to put something at the bottom, after a person (theoretically) has read the entire page... "Note: Collected below are the most recent blog posts from all over the Mozilla community. The content here is unfiltered and uncensored, and represents the views of individual community members."
Created attachment 410304 [details] [diff] [review] Ubuntu-like legalese disclaimer w/ registered trademarks
Asa: did you talk to legal about this? What was their take on it?
Created attachment 410305 [details] [diff] [review] Patch for friendly disclaimer at top So, these are the two options that were discussed, as far as I can tell. Either works for me, although I somewhat prefer the friendlier note at the top over the trademark stuff at the bottom. I guess it'd be up to legal to tell us if we need the latter whether we like it or not... Setting review? on Asa as that seems to be the person to bug about PMO...
Comment on attachment 410305 [details] [diff] [review] Patch for friendly disclaimer at top Deb, does this text work for you?
filed bug 526591 for licensing issue
r=dria It's simple and to the point which is awesome. Thanks Gijs.
What's the <h2> for? Might be worth styling the div with some light grey and italics, but no reason not to push it live for that.
Created attachment 410458 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to line up the extra div I put in the h2 to make it consistent with the other sections in the sidebar. I tried grey - the background is white, so at least for me, that made it hard to read - plus, all of the other content in the sidebar is "straight" and not in italics. If people disagree, feel free. The reason I'm adding another patch after all is that the previous one didn't have any padding in it, and so the div was shifted 15px out of line with all the other ones. Fixing that. If this gets r+, I actually don't think I have commit access to SVN, so someone else will need to push it, I'm afraid. :-)
Oh, silly me. I didn't notice your code was in the sidebar for some reason. Still wish we could get away without an h2, but makes much more sense now in my mind. :)
(In reply to comment #15) > Oh, silly me. I didn't notice your code was in the sidebar for some reason. > Still wish we could get away without an h2, but makes much more sense now in my > mind. :) Fair enough! (In reply to comment #14) > If this gets r+, I actually don't think I have commit access to SVN, so someone > else will need to push it, I'm afraid. :-) I just read up on m.governance about the dormant accounts stuff, and checked gerv's list of all vcs accounts - apparently IT certainly thinks I have an SVN account, so I guess I'll try that if Asa is OK with this patch. :-)
(In reply to comment #16) > I just read up on m.governance about the dormant accounts stuff, and checked > gerv's list of all vcs accounts - apparently IT certainly thinks I have an SVN > account, so I guess I'll try that if Asa is OK with this patch. :-) Unlike CVS and Hg, SVN access is done by path, so you wouldn't have access. I'll be happy to commit this for you, however.
Same here, when you're ready just say.
(In reply to comment #18) > Same here, when you're ready just say. Yeah, just waiting on an r+ for that style addition. Should I just be carrying that over? If so, the last (non-obsolete) patch can be checked in, as far as I'm concerned.
Comment on attachment 410458 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to line up the extra div r=reed I'll check this in for you with some minor changes (like make "Planet Mozilla" be a variable that comes from the config file, just like the existing title).
(In reply to comment #20) > (From update of attachment 410458 [details] [diff] [review]) > r=reed > > I'll check this in for you with some minor changes (like make "Planet Mozilla" > be a variable that comes from the config file, just like the existing title). OK, has that happened yet? I don't know if PMO needs a push like AMO does - I just don't see anything on the live site yet. :-)
(In reply to comment #22) > r56996 ugh, I forgot to include proper attribution to you, Gijs. My apologies.