450358 - Xiph and CSIRO licenses should appear in about:license for media/* code

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Core :: General, defect)

Description

[u278084]

Various ogg libs are distributed under the BSD license. I think this should be reflected in the about:license page.

Comment 1

[cajbir (:cajbir)]

Attachment: Add Xiph and CSIRO (Annodex code) license to about:license.

Add Xiph and CSIRO (Annodex code) license to about:license.

Comment 2

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

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) &lt;year>, Xiph.org Foundation

Make that '>' "&gt;", 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).

Comment 3

[cajbir (:cajbir)]

Attachment: Updated based on review comments

Comment 4

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

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

Comment 5

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8b4971743a19

Comment 6

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3331da81af4d for review nit.

Still needs to land on comm-central.

Comment 7

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Comment on attachment 334615 [details] [diff] [review]
Updated based on review comments

Patch doesn't apply.

Comment 8

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

"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.

Comment 9

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

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.

Comment 10

[Mike Beltzner [:beltzner, not reading bugmail]]

Hey Phil, to get it out of that list, add the "fixed1.9.1" keyword :)

Comment 11

[Aakash Desai [:aakashd]]

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.