Closed Bug 731193 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

Update Microsoft "DirectX" licence in about:license to list all shipped MS DLLs and give it a more generic name

Categories

(mozilla.org :: Licensing, task)

task
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: gerv, Assigned: gerv)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Bug 610838 comment 37 says that it should say:

This license applies to the following files; they are referred to below as
“Distributable Code”:

•    d3dx9_*.dll
•    DbgHelp.dll
•    mozcrt19.dll
•    mozcpp19.dll

Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation.

The Distributable Code may be used and distributed only if you comply with the
following terms:
•    You may use, copy, and distribute the Distributable Code only as part of
this product.
•    You may not use the Distributable Code on a platform other than Windows.
•    You may not alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in the
Distributable Code.
•    You may not modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code
so that any part of the source code becomes subject to the MPL or any other
copyleft license.
•    You must comply with any technical limitations in the Distributable Code
that only allow you to use it in certain ways.
•    You must comply with all domestic and international export laws and
regulations that apply to the Distributable Code.

Gerv
:vlad writes:

"This should be "d3d*.dll" -- the two files are d3dx9_42.dll and d3dcompiler_42.dll."

Gerv
(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #0)
> Bug 610838 comment 37 says that it should say:
> 
> This license applies to the following files; they are referred to below as
> “Distributable Code”:
> 
> •    d3d*.dll

Yes.

> •    DbgHelp.dll

We don't redistribute this.  This is expected to be on the user's system already.

> •    mozcrt19.dll
> •    mozcpp19.dll

We don't redistribute a modified version of the CRT anymore.  This should be msvc*.dll (currently msvcp100.dll and msvcr100.dll), which are the unmodified copies of the CRT governed by the license at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235299.aspx (and on the installation media, which I don't have access to right now.)
Attached patch Patch v.1Splinter Review
Taking into account all comments, I think this is what we want. (Comes with free formatting improvements :-)

Gerv
Attachment #601298 - Flags: review?(villalu)
Comment on attachment 601298 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v.1

Review of attachment 601298 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mostly looks good, but see two comments below.

::: toolkit/content/license.html
@@ +108,5 @@
>      <ul>      
>        <li><a href="about:license#other-notices">Other Required Notices</a>
>        <li><a href="about:license#optional-notices">Optional Notices</a>
>  #ifdef XP_WIN
> +      <li><a href="about:license#proprietary-notices">Proprietary Operating System Components</a>

Why the change from Libraries to Components?

@@ +2621,5 @@
>      for that vendor's proprietary platform, to make our products work well on
>      that specific operating system. The following license statements
>      apply to such inclusions.</p>
>      
> +    <h2><a id="directx"></a>Microsoft Windows: 'Microsoft Distributable Code' License</h2>

Might be better to make this "Licenses", since there is a family of similar licenses that aren't exactly identical but have the same clauses for Mozilla's purposes. Pluralize below as necessary as well.
(In reply to Luis Villa [Outside Counsel; for non-law use luis@tieguy.org] from comment #4)
> >        <li><a href="about:license#other-notices">Other Required Notices</a>
> >        <li><a href="about:license#optional-notices">Optional Notices</a>
> >  #ifdef XP_WIN
> > +      <li><a href="about:license#proprietary-notices">Proprietary Operating System Components</a>
> 
> Why the change from Libraries to Components?

It seemed a bit more generic. If you feel strongly, or if there's some legal reason, I can certainly switch it back.
 
> @@ +2621,5 @@
> >      for that vendor's proprietary platform, to make our products work well on
> >      that specific operating system. The following license statements
> >      apply to such inclusions.</p>
> >      
> > +    <h2><a id="directx"></a>Microsoft Windows: 'Microsoft Distributable Code' License</h2>
> 
> Might be better to make this "Licenses", since there is a family of similar
> licenses that aren't exactly identical but have the same clauses for
> Mozilla's purposes. Pluralize below as necessary as well.

I don't think that's quite right. The license text is not text provided by them, but text written by us which meets the criteria set by them. We are licensing all of the MS Distributable Code components to end-users under this single singular license which we have written.

Isn't that right?

Gerv
(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #5)
> (In reply to Luis Villa [Outside Counsel; for non-law use luis@tieguy.org]
> from comment #4)
> > >        <li><a href="about:license#other-notices">Other Required Notices</a>
> > >        <li><a href="about:license#optional-notices">Optional Notices</a>
> > >  #ifdef XP_WIN
> > > +      <li><a href="about:license#proprietary-notices">Proprietary Operating System Components</a>
> > 
> > Why the change from Libraries to Components?
> 
> It seemed a bit more generic. If you feel strongly, or if there's some legal
> reason, I can certainly switch it back.

Don't feel strongly, just wondering if there was a specific reason. That seems fine.
  
> > @@ +2621,5 @@
> > >      for that vendor's proprietary platform, to make our products work well on
> > >      that specific operating system. The following license statements
> > >      apply to such inclusions.</p>
> > >      
> > > +    <h2><a id="directx"></a>Microsoft Windows: 'Microsoft Distributable Code' License</h2>
> > 
> > Might be better to make this "Licenses", since there is a family of similar
> > licenses that aren't exactly identical but have the same clauses for
> > Mozilla's purposes. Pluralize below as necessary as well.
> 
> I don't think that's quite right. The license text is not text provided by
> them, but text written by us which meets the criteria set by them. We are
> licensing all of the MS Distributable Code components to end-users under
> this single singular license which we have written.
> 
> Isn't that right?

To be explicit, our outbound license on these components is a single license, but the inbound licenses for the components are a variety of licenses. 

With that in mind, I might be more comfortable calling these "terms" rather than a standalone license- might be more clear, and make it more explicit that these are part of our requirements. Thoughts?
Yep, "Terms for 'Microsoft Distributable Code'" works for me.

Gerv
Comment on attachment 601298 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v.1

Review of attachment 601298 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: toolkit/content/license.html
@@ +2626,2 @@
>  
>      <p>This license applies to the following files;

Needs to be "These terms apply to..." then. Otherwise looks good.
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/acacad8327fe
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment on attachment 601298 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v.1

Review of attachment 601298 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for spam; clearing the review flag.
Attachment #601298 - Flags: review?
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.