Closed Bug 471474 Opened 13 years ago Closed 13 years ago

fennec/mobile-browser hg tree lacks LICENSE file in top-level directory


(Firefox for Android Graveyard :: General, defect)

Not set


(Not tracked)



(Reporter: asac, Assigned: mfinkle)



(1 file, 2 obsolete files)

Please add a LICENSE file to allow redistribution of hg exports (and later source tarballs produced from it).

Look at mozilla-central tree for an example.

Thanks for considering this as a blocker so we can ship preview snapshots of fennec in ubuntu distribution without any legal uncertainty.
Flags: blocking-fennec1.0?
Attached patch patch (obsolete) — Splinter Review
adds the LICENSE file the same way Firefox does
Assignee: nobody → mark.finkle
Attachment #355573 - Flags: review?(
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=355573) [details]
> patch
> adds the LICENSE file the same way Firefox does

Thanks thats definitly good to have. However this bug was about LICENSE file not being in top level hg tree. Would it be possible to add a copy here?
Basically the same as the previous patch, but adds the LICENSE file to the mobile-browser repo and use that file, not the top-level LICENSE file from mozilla-central
Attachment #355573 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #355581 - Flags: review?(
Attachment #355573 - Flags: review?(
Comment on attachment 355581 [details] [diff] [review]
patch 2 - adds the LICENSE file to the mobile repo

MXR's LICENSE file was changed to refer to toolkit's license.html in bug 236613, but reverted again "to make the SeaMonkey installer suck less" (don't see any relevant comments in the original bug - I suppose seamonkey uses that file as-is in its installer?)

Given that the SeaMonkey installer isn't relevant here, I think it would be better to use revision 3.5 from CVS. That means we probably can't ship it as-is as this patch would otherwise do (since license.html is packaged in the JAR in the shipped build), but we need a better story there anyways (we need a way to show about:license that's discoverable to the user, I believe).
Attachment #355581 - Flags: review?( → review-
Gavin - So what's the real fix here? Comment 4 is a bit hard for me to follow.
For this bug, I think we should just add as our top-level LICENSE, and avoid the part of your patch that ships it in dist/bin.

I think we also need a followup bug to add a user-visible way to get to about:license (e.g. from an about dialog).
Although I guess that refers to a file in mozilla-central, so perhaps we should include a full URL, like:
please don't put just am URL in there. We need the actual license text to get an independent source tree. Also an URL might go away at some point and so on ... Thanks!
OK, I suppose we only need to worry about the code in the mobile-browser repository for the purposes of this bug, and all of that is tri-licensed. So let's just put the MPL/GPL/LGPL parts of license.html there.

The license files we show in a shipped Fennec (built from mozilla-central and mobile-browser) will need to have all of the relevant licenses, obviously, but that's a separate matter.
Though having said that, just dumping the full text of three licenses in there isn't very friendly.

Gerv: is there a better summary of the tri-license that we could use as a preface? The boilerplate is close, I guess.
What Gavin says in comment #9 is correct. We need to put the full text of all three licenses in there in order to solve Alex's problem. This may be a bit "unfriendly", but this is about legal certainty, not friendliness :-) Debian has various policy mechanisms for presenting summary licensing information about packages, which I'm sure people can use. But to follow the terms of the licenses in question, you need to include a full copy of the license text. And the easiest way is for us to put it in there.

For files called LICENSE, plain text is generally more appropriate than HTML. The file should be a simple concatenation of the official plain text versions of the MPL, GPL and LGPL, with a header:

"This code may be used and redistributed under your choice of the following three sets of license terms:"

Attached patch add LICENSESplinter Review
(In reply to comment #11)
> with a header:
> "This code may be used and redistributed under your choice of the following
> three sets of license terms:"

I was looking for something that made it a bit easier to see what licenses we were talking about, so went with:

>This code may be used and redistributed under your choice of:
>    * Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 or later
>    * GNU General Public License, version 2.0 or later
>    * GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 or later
>The terms of these licenses are included here for reference:

Does that look OK to you, Gerv?
Attachment #355581 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #357416 - Flags: review?(gerv)
Comment on attachment 357416 [details] [diff] [review]

Looks fine. r=gerv.

Attachment #357416 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
verified via mxr.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.