MPL and NPL links to licenses in chrome doesn't work and should be changed to working location: Security Error: Content at about: may not load or link to chrome://global/content/MPL-1.1.html. Error: uncaught exception: Load of chrome://global/content/MPL-1.1.html denied. Security Error: Content at about: may not load or link to chrome://global/content/MPL-1.1.html.

Hmm. This is a different bug to the Firefox one (which was a missing file.) It's probably some security improvements which have caught this legitimate use of chrome:// from about:. Not sure who to ask about that. jst? Gerv

seems to work fine for me on recent windows builds.

Chris: Still same with 2004090206/trunk/W2K for me.

With some help from bz to really narrow this down, this regressed between 2004071407 and 2004071419. timeless' checkin for bug 251368 was responsible. Still broken with 2004101405, btw.

Given the conversation in bug 251368, requesting blocking1.8a5 (as there's no blocking1.8final flag yet). We really do need to sort this out - it's not very good if someone downloads the software, looks for the licence and can't read it. Gerv

This implements about:NPL and about:MPL and allows anything (including, but not limited to, about:) to link to them.

about:mpl is probably not the best name, because soon that licence will become the MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licence. Also, other vendors might want to use that URL to put the details of their binary licences on (which can be different, according to the MPL). I know we'll get into spelling issues, but I suspect about:licen[cs]e is more future-proof. Implement both if it's trivial, otherwise go with the majority spelling (licence ;-). Gerv

Implementing both is trivial. The problem is that we have two licenses we need to link to.... so we still need two different names for them. about:otherlicense? Or what? ;)

Actually, we don't have two licences - we can just use the MPL with the NPL diff addendum. And, even if we did, we could just put them one above another in the document. IMO, about:licen[cs]e should be defined as giving details of the licensing of the app you are using - however complex that is. Gerv

If someone (not I; I'm not willing to touch that stuff) fixes things so there is one and only one license file, I will be quite glad to point about:license and about:licence to it. Note that others wishing to use about:license/licence would need to put their license into the exact same chrome location for it to work, however.

Fair enough. I will do that - but I can't for the next month. However, given that this is a suite-only problem, and we're not releasing in the next month, that's OK. Gerv

Gerv, how do you define month? (or how do you define release?) ;-P We should try to get this fixed for the upcoming alpha, I think.

Asa: I define "month" as "November" in that context. :-) We've missed a5; let's try for a6. Gerv

This file contains the MPL and also the NPL addendum, with a short explanatory note. It's not particularly pretty, but I'm confident that after it gets checked in, seventeen volunteers will appear with alternate stylesheets, a switching system, JavaScript which replaces the word "license" with "licence" throughout depending on which about: URL you used to access the page, and validation patches. Gerv

</me reads bz's current name> Hopefully bz will be able to rev his patch when he returns from his Christmas break :-) Gerv

We'll take this if it's ready in time. If not, then it can wait until Beta.

bz: are you able to finish this off soon? It's reasonably important that our builds have the correct licence notices available. Thanks, Gerv

I'm hoping to get to it later today, actually.

So the changes I made were: 1) Change the MPL-1.1.html in the tree to be the one Gerv attached 2) Change about: and the security manager to allow linking to about:license and about:licence from everywhere. I left NPL-1.1.html as-is (packaged and all), in case some extensions want to show it or something. Gerv, could you please review the changes to about.xhtml that I made? In particular, should I still be using the conjunction "and" between the license names? Or would "or" be more appropriate?

Comment on attachment 171422 [details] [diff] [review] Patch And is fine for the moment; but perhaps you might like to take this opportunity to rename MPL-1.1.html to something like licen[cs]e.html? I have various plans for that file (notifications for some BSD-ish code, for example), and the name is going to get more and more inappropriate. Gerv

Comment on attachment 171422 [details] [diff] [review] Patch >Index: netwerk/protocol/about/src/nsAboutRedirector.cpp ... > static RedirEntry kRedirMap[] = { ... >+ { "license", "chrome://global/content/MPL-1.1.html", PR_TRUE }, >+ { "licence", "chrome://global/content/MPL-1.1.html", PR_TRUE }, why is this entry repeated? >+ { "about:license", >+ NS_ABOUT_REDIRECTOR_MODULE_CID, >+ NS_ABOUT_MODULE_CONTRACTID_PREFIX "license", >+ nsAboutRedirector::Create >+ }, >+ { "about:licence", >+ NS_ABOUT_REDIRECTOR_MODULE_CID, >+ NS_ABOUT_MODULE_CONTRACTID_PREFIX "licence", >+ nsAboutRedirector::Create >+ }, again, why is this repeated? >Index: caps/src/nsScriptSecurityManager.cpp >+ path.EqualsLiteral("license") || >+ path.EqualsLiteral("licence") || uhm... folks? I don't get it :-(

BTW sr=me without the duplication of code :)

Darin, there are two spellings of the word "license" -- the British spelling and the American spelling. My patch adds support for both, per explicit request from Gerv in comment 7.

Comment on attachment 171422 [details] [diff] [review] Patch doh! and i starred at those strings for a while, but somehow missed the difference :(

Patch checked in as-is. Gerv, could you file a separate bug on renaming the file? That involves changing the jar.mn files that point to it, and getting it CVS moved by someone with access to the CVS server....

Has such a bug been filed (renaming)? I also wonder if there is a bug for updating the file per comment 14. I'm am willing to update the file as I have done for MPL-1.1.html.

Bug 280658 added for file renaming issue. Anne - if you wish to fix the markup, please file another bug. However, you may want to wait to fix it until I've updated those files some more, which I hope to do soon. Gerv