403164 - Add Sparkle license to about:license on branch and trunk

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Camino Graveyard :: General, defect)

Description

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Code for bug 185436 is about to be in-process on the MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH and the trunk, so per bug 399977 comment 1, we need to add the Sparkle license to about:license.

Gerv, I assume you're keeping (or trying to keep) all three copies of license.html in sync with each other (on the respective branches), but this code will only be a part of Camino.  Given that, should we use a parenthetical (like with the Growl License) that says something to the effect of

(This code only ships in the Camino browser or products based on it.)

?  (Yes, people embed Camino in order to embed Gecko in Cocoa apps. For about:license do we care about uses of the code outside of mozilla.org projects, or just m.o ones?)

I can do the patch(es) here once we have an answer about the wording.

Comment 1

[Gervase Markham [:gerv] (not reading bugmail)]

Yeah, we should probably keep them all in sync, and do the "parenthetical" thing in the same way and with the same formatting we use for other stuff. (Does the Growl notice use parentheses?)

We do care about projects outside of m.o; it's nice to make their lives easier.

Gerv

Comment 2

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

"This license applies to certain files in the directory toolkit/components/alerts/src/mac/growl/. (This code only ships in the Mac OS X version of the product.)"

I'll work up a patch based on that, then.

Comment 3

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Attachment: trunk patch [checked in]

Here's a patch that uses the same wording style as other "only ships in foo", using the wording I proposed in comment 0.

Comment 4

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Attachment: MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH patch

There were a number of context changes that prevented the trunk patch from applying on the branch, so here's a self-contained branch patch.

Comment 5

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Comment on attachment 288418 [details] [diff] [review]
trunk patch [checked in]

(Who'd have thought there'd be more than one match for "gerv"?)

Comment 6

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Do we need sr on these before requesting approvals to land, or is Gerv the final word on about:license changes?

Comment 7

[Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)]

Gerv's review should be sufficient.

Comment 8

[Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)]

Comment on attachment 288419 [details] [diff] [review]
MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH patch

This is a simple license.html change which is needed for Camino to include the Sparkle framework for software updates.

Comment 9

[Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)]

Comment on attachment 288418 [details] [diff] [review]
trunk patch [checked in]

Whoops. Requested trunk approval on the wrong patch.

This is a simple license.html change which is needed for Camino to include the
Sparkle framework for software updates.

Comment 10

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Comment on attachment 288418 [details] [diff] [review]
trunk patch [checked in]

Checked in on the trunk; leaving this bug open until we get branch approval.

Comment 11

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Comment on attachment 288419 [details] [diff] [review]
MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH patch

approved for 1.8.1.12, a=dveditz

If all these versions of the file are kept in sync we should only have one copy -- is there a bug on that?

Comment 12

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

There are various bugs on the situation.  Currently, I aware of bugs on the following (but don't have the numbers handy; philor can point you to those bugs better than I):

1) there are problems with non-browser apps being able to use the html+js transformed ones,

2) one version of the file is supposed to serve as a plain-text tarball-styled README, 

3) there's currently no way for the toolkit version of the file to handle the trademark license/EULA information for non-MoCo products (bug 368091),

4) and we have to figure out something for XULRunner, too.

Anyway, checked in to the MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH; thanks all!