Closed
Bug 507387
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
Update license blocks to use "Mozilla Foundation" instead of "Mozilla Corporation"
Categories
(mozilla.org :: Licensing, task)
mozilla.org
Licensing
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: whimboo, Assigned: gerv)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
(deleted),
patch
|
gerv
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
(deleted),
patch
|
gerv
:
review+
sgautherie
:
feedback+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Given by an email conversation with Gerv about the license block for Mozmill I have detected that a lot of existing files in our repository have a line for the Initial Developer which lists the Mozilla Corporation. In detail are these 925 files. Those should list Mozilla Foundation as Initial Developer instead.
> The Initial Developer of the Original Code is Mozilla Corporation.
=>
> The Initial Developer of the Original Code is Mozilla Foundation.
Given by Gerv this change has a minor priority but we should take care for new files.
Updated•15 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [good first bug]
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
Thanks for the patch Metal Sonic. Gerv, who can review this patch?
Assignee: hecker → kidlinux96
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2)
> Thanks for the patch Metal Sonic. Gerv, who can review this patch?
You're welcome.
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
I've looked at the patch. It appears to be as advertised: It changes the Initial Developer statements in comments to reference "Mozilla Foundation" instead of "Mozilla Corporation", and makes no other changes.
Comment 5•15 years ago
|
||
Say, has anyone pushed this yet?
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4)
> I've looked at the patch. It appears to be as advertised: It changes the
> Initial Developer statements in comments to reference "Mozilla Foundation"
> instead of "Mozilla Corporation", and makes no other changes.
Frank, can you give r+? Do we need a 2nd reviewer or a super review too?
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 417543 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to mozilla-central made using find-and-replace
[Checkin: Comment 8]
r=gerv.
Gerv
Attachment #417543 -
Flags: review+
Reporter | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•15 years ago
|
||
Fixed on trunk:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/641a22b4100a
Gerv
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•15 years ago
|
||
How should we handle branches? I believe we wanna fix the license block there too. The best would be to have new patches for 1.9.2 and 1.9.1?
Keywords: checkin-needed
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•15 years ago
|
||
We aren't going to sue ourselves, so while it's good to get this tidied up going forward, it's not worth bothering branch drivers with. They have more important things to think about :-)
Gerv
Comment 11•15 years ago
|
||
Aren't there many more occurrences yet?
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•15 years ago
|
||
Indeed. There are a couple left:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=Mozilla+Corporation
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 13•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #12)
> Indeed. There are a couple left:
> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=Mozilla+Corporation
Oops. I didn't know that ALL of the Mozilla Corp. references were wrong.
I guess I'll get on that, only 907 lines to go, <sigh>.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•15 years ago
|
||
They aren't _all_ wrong. Only where the Mozilla Corporation is claimed to be a copyright holder. Don't do a straight global search and replace for the string "Mozilla Corporation"! :-)
Gerv
Comment 15•15 years ago
|
||
Thanks for the catch there.
Comment 16•15 years ago
|
||
Here is another patch that fixes some of the Inital Dev. statements that my find-and-replace missed(all in /netwerk/ I think).
Why "part 1"? Well, considering that there were _907_ occurrences of "Mozilla Corporation", I thought it would be better to release this in chunks.
Attachment #418865 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Comment 17•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 418865 [details] [diff] [review]
Another patch to mozilla-central, part 1
A lot of files are included as a whole: EOL issues!?
Comment 18•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 418865 [details] [diff] [review]
Another patch to mozilla-central, part 1
indeed, this patch is whacked.
Attachment #418865 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #418865 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Comment 19•15 years ago
|
||
Gerv, should we use "Mozilla Foundation" or "the Mozilla Foundation" or "The Mozilla Foundation"?
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•15 years ago
|
||
If you are generating new patches, use "the Mozilla Foundation". But let's not change the old stuff. There's already too much energy diverted into this bug :-)
Gerv
Updated•15 years ago
|
Attachment #417543 -
Attachment description: Patch to mozilla-central made using find-and-replace → Patch to mozilla-central made using find-and-replace
[Checkin: Comment 8]
Comment 21•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #12)
> Indeed. There are a couple left:
> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=Mozilla+Corporation
Also need to search for "Mozilla Corp", as I've found that in several places.
Comment 22•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #21)
> Also need to search for "Mozilla Corp", as I've found that in several places.
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=Mozilla+Corp%5B%5Eo%5D®exp=1&case=1
Found 59 matching lines in 59 files
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
Comment 23•15 years ago
|
||
Apparently, "mozilla.org" is also being used in places as the initial developer. :(
Comment 24•15 years ago
|
||
Also, "Mozilla Messaging, Inc." should be "Mozilla Foundation", too, aiui.
Reporter | ||
Comment 25•15 years ago
|
||
All that changes were using "Mozilla Foundation" instead of "the Mozilla Foundation". As written by Gerv a while back (http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2010/02/mpl_initial_developer_for_mozilla_employ.html), shall we worry about that now?
Assignee | ||
Comment 26•15 years ago
|
||
The "the" is a grammatical rather than a legal point. So if there are future patches, use "the", but it's not worth doing these again.
Gerv
Comment 27•14 years ago
|
||
Relinquishing assignment due to chronic absence.
Assignee: kidlinux96 → gerv
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Comment 28•14 years ago
|
||
Based on Serge's MXR search, I changed the Initial Developer from "Mozilla Corp" to "the Mozilla Foundation" across some files.
Comment 29•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 518636 [details] [diff] [review]
Replace "Mozilla Corp" with "the Mozilla Foundation" as Initial Developer
[Checked in: Comment 33]
Just had a glance at it: looks good to me. f+.
Attachment #518636 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Attachment #518636 -
Flags: feedback+
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #518636 -
Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Updated•14 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #518636 -
Flags: review+ → review?(gerv)
Comment 30•14 years ago
|
||
Tyler, any reason you re-requested review from Gerv?
Assignee | ||
Comment 31•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 518636 [details] [diff] [review]
Replace "Mozilla Corp" with "the Mozilla Foundation" as Initial Developer
[Checked in: Comment 33]
Look, guys, I don't see this as a priority. If you want to fix it, knock yourselves out :-) Can I trust you not to break anything? Good. Automatic r+ from me on patches which _just_ do what this one does and update the ID (no other types of change, even other comments).
Gerv
Attachment #518636 -
Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Comment 32•14 years ago
|
||
My apologies for the duplicate review request. I didn't even realize that a review request had already been made. Thanks for pointing that out, Reed :)
Comment 33•14 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago → 14 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 34•14 years ago
|
||
Is there a reason why all the new versions did not follow the boilerplate on how this is supposed to be done? See https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/boilerplate-1.1/mpl-tri-license-c
(specifically, Mozilla Foundation should be been on a new line)
Comment 35•14 years ago
|
||
Well, "the Mozilla Foundation" should have been in a new line, but probably doesn't matter much.
The problem here, is that I can still find a lot of entries just searching "mozilla corp" in mxr, more than 200 entries, since I don't see any indication of the bug being limited to a certain subpath of the codebase, the bug itself doesn't yet look fixed (even if it did a really nice advancement).
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Assignee | ||
Comment 36•14 years ago
|
||
sdwilsh: ideally, we would follow the boilerplate exactly, but this variation is not one which will cause any scripts to barf (they have to be able to cope with a variety of existing practices).
Gerv
Updated•13 years ago
|
Attachment #518636 -
Attachment description: Replace "Mozilla Corp" with "the Mozilla Foundation" as Initial Developer → Replace "Mozilla Corp" with "the Mozilla Foundation" as Initial Developer
[Checked in: Comment 33]
Updated•13 years ago
|
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Whiteboard: [good first bug] → [good first bug][mentor=gerv]
Assignee | ||
Comment 37•13 years ago
|
||
This block style is going away in favour of the MPL 2.
Gerv
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago → 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Whiteboard: [good first bug][mentor=gerv]
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•