notification requirements [was Re: MPL Alpha 1 Draft Released]

  On 8/16/10 10:36 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>  I am missing the old section 3.3, second part, which demands that the 
> origin (copyright) of the MPL code is described in executable versions 
> and documentation. I do think it's a moral obligation to give credit 
> to the Mozilla authors, and MPL 1.1 made it explicit, and I want this 
> requirement to stay.
>
> I think the least we can expect for our work on Mozilla is to be 
> credited and thanked for it.
Hi, Ben-
You mean "You must include a prominent statement that the Modification 
is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original Code provided by the 
Initial Developer and including the name of the Initial Developer in (a) 
the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an Executable version or 
related documentation in which You describe the origin or ownership of 
the Covered Code." ?

I think we meant this general situation to be covered by the new 3.4:
"You may not remove or alter any valid copyright or patent notices 
contained within the Source Code form of the Covered Software, or any 
valid notices of licensing."

This still 'gives credit', though not as explicit as part (b) of the 
language you cited (notice in executable versions or documentation.)

My personal experience is that virtually no one reads documentation, so 
that any requirements pertaining to documentation don't actually do much 
to help give credit. But you're right that the removal of 'notice in an 
Executable version' makes the new language less forceful, and you're not 
the first to mention this (it came up in the co-ment tool as well.)

Do others here have thoughts/comments/concerns about this area? We'll 
take a harder look, but if others have thoughts about it, that would be 
great to hear as well. Thanks.

Luis

-- 
Luis Villa, Mozilla Legal
work email: [email protected] (preferred)
work phone: 650-903-0800 x327
personal: http://tieguy.org/about/