Closed
Bug 450358
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
Xiph and CSIRO licenses should appear in about:license for media/* code
Categories
(Core :: General, defect)
Core
General
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla1.9.1b1
People
(Reporter: u278084, Assigned: cajbir)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: verified1.9.1)
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
13.65 KB,
patch
|
gerv
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Various ogg libs are distributed under the BSD license. I think this should be reflected in the about:license page.
Flags: blocking1.9.1?
Updated•14 years ago
|
Summary: ogg license should appear in about:license → Xiph and Annodex licenses should appear in about:license for media/* code
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Add Xiph and CSIRO (Annodex code) license to about:license.
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 333697 [details] [diff] [review] Add Xiph and CSIRO (Annodex code) license to about:license. >+ <h1><a name="csiro"></a>CSIRO Australia License</h1> >+ >+ <p class="correctme">This license applies to certain files in the directories Is it only certain files or all files? If it's all files, just drop the "certain". >+ <span class="path">media/libfishsound/</span>, >+ <span class="path">media/liboggz/</span> and Need a comma after </span> (The serial/Oxford/Harvard comma). However, one of my next comments might/should make this unnecessary, so read on. :) >+ <span class="path">media/liboggplay/</span>. Please keep the list alphabetized (liboggplay before liboggz). >+ </p> I liked how you used <ul> and <li> for the Xiph.org license, so, can you use that format again instead of listing them all on the same line, or was there a particular reason you did it this way? Using <ul><li>... makes it easier to add new directories in the future, too, and it doesn't crowd them all on one line making readability easier. >+ <h1><a name="xiph"></a>Xiph.org Foundation License</h1> >+ >+ <p class="correctme">This license applies to certain files in the following directories >+ with the specified copyright year ranges:</p> Same question as above: Is it only certain files or all files? If it's all files, just drop the "certain". >+ <ul> >+ <li><span class="path">media/libogg/</span>, Copyright (c) 2002, Xiph.org Foundation</li> >+ <li><span class="path">media/libtheora/</span>, Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Xiph.org Foundation</li> >+ <li><span class="path">media/libvorbis/</span>, Copyright (c) 2002-2004, Xiph.org Foundation</li> >+ </ul> Since the copyright holder is always Xiph.org Foundation, you could take that out, as you list it below, or do you think there will be a case where the copyright holder might be different but the code still under the Xiph.org license? >+ >+<pre> >+Copyright (c) <year>, Xiph.org Foundation Make that '>' ">", please. xpfe/global/resources/content/license.html and mail/license.html should be updated at the same time, too. This probably means you need another patch against comm-central (unless you can include a cross-repo patch somehow).
Attachment #333697 -
Flags: review?(reed) → review-
Updated•14 years ago
|
Summary: Xiph and Annodex licenses should appear in about:license for media/* code → Xiph and CSIRO licenses should appear in about:license for media/* code
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
Attachment #333697 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #334615 -
Flags: review?(reed)
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 334615 [details] [diff] [review] Updated based on review comments The first <ul> in each file is missing its </ul>. Other than than, r=gerv. Gerv
Attachment #334615 -
Flags: review?(reed) → review+
Updated•14 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Updated•14 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8b4971743a19
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3331da81af4d for review nit. Still needs to land on comm-central.
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 334615 [details] [diff] [review] Updated based on review comments Patch doesn't apply.
Attachment #334615 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•14 years ago
|
Updated•14 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.9.1? → blocking1.9.1+
Target Milestone: mozilla1.9.1b2 → mozilla1.9.1
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #334615 -
Attachment is obsolete: false
Comment 8•14 years ago
|
||
"doesn't apply" in the "there's no /xpfe/global/resources/content/license.html in comm-central, just the One True license.html in toolkit/, thank Sauron" sense, so this has actually been done for a couple of months.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 9•14 years ago
|
||
Retargeting to back when it actually landed, to get it out of beltzner's "blockers that still need to land on 1.9.1" list.
Target Milestone: mozilla1.9.1 → mozilla1.9.1b1
Comment 10•14 years ago
|
||
Hey Phil, to get it out of that list, add the "fixed1.9.1" keyword :)
Keywords: fixed1.9.1
Comment 11•13 years ago
|
||
Seeing as there hasn't been any discussions about this bug for 3 months and it's a sort-of doc bug, I'm assuming there aren't any residual issues. I'm moving this to verified as a result. If anyone has any qualms, feel free to bring them up.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Keywords: fixed1.9.1 → verified1.9.1
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•