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

  Hey Luis, thanks for the answer. Response below.

On 19.08.2010 20:16, Luis Villa wrote:
>  On 8/16/10 10:36 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>>  I am missing the old section 3.3, second part
>>
>> I think the least we can expect for our work on Mozilla is to be 
>> credited and thanked for it.
> 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." ?
>

Yes.

> 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."

I know, but that's not enough.
If I wrote the whole network library, I still wouldn't appear in the 
Help | About box.
Similarly, if I take Gecko and build my own browser UI around it, I 
don't remove any noticed and don't have to credit anything.

> This still 'gives credit'

Unfortunately, it does not.

The above mentioned problems didn't exist in the old wording, it was 
much clearer, and had no loopholes.