Opened on 06/06/2014 at 06:31:46 AM

Closed on 07/18/2016 at 04:21:55 PM

#645 closed defect (rejected)

Missing link to license and an explanation of what's allowed

Reported by: Gingerbread Man Assignee:
Priority: Unknown Milestone:
Module: Websites Keywords: content
Cc: saroyanm, lisabielik, Kai Blocked By:
Blocking: Platform: Unknown
Ready: no Confidential: no
Tester: Unknown Verified working: no
Review URL(s):


Every now and again, you see threads like this one, that ask questions about the Adblock Plus license.

I can find no link or mention of what license Adblock Plus uses, and what it allows. I had to go to the Firefox Add-ons site, and then the GNU Project site.

I think at the very least there should be links to the license on the About and Source Code pages.

A few notable things allowed and forbidden by the license would also be helpful, but only to prefix the full license, not as a substitute for reading it.

Attachments (0)

Change History (8)

comment:1 Changed on 07/09/2014 at 12:38:11 PM by philll

  • Platform set to Firefox

comment:2 Changed on 07/09/2014 at 01:11:36 PM by philll

  • Platform changed from Firefox to Unknown

comment:3 Changed on 07/10/2014 at 04:54:49 AM by Gingerbread Man

  • Keywords content added

comment:4 Changed on 09/17/2014 at 04:19:49 PM by trev

  • Component changed from Infrastructure to Websites

comment:5 Changed on 09/27/2014 at 05:36:21 PM by saroyanm

  • Priority changed from Unknown to P3

comment:6 Changed on 02/05/2015 at 09:07:04 PM by cornholington

Beyond information about how the source is licensed, the website content itself could also use annotation. For example, it's unclear under what terms the filter specification documentation

is licensed.

comment:7 follow-up: Changed on 01/28/2016 at 03:03:06 PM by juliandoucette

  • Cc saroyanm sven lisabielik Kai added
  • Tester set to Unknown
  • I agree that we should mention something about our licencing on /about and /source.
  • I don't think it's necessary to host a page that summarizes some things that are allowed or forbidden by the GPL
  • I agree that we should display clear licence information about website content EG: filters. However, I think that should be a separate issue.

Can I have your thoughts Lisa & Kai?

comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 Changed on 07/18/2016 at 04:21:55 PM by saroyanm

  • Cc sven removed
  • Priority changed from P3 to Unknown
  • Resolution set to rejected
  • Status changed from new to closed

Replying to juliandoucette:

  • I agree that we should mention something about our licencing on /about and /source.

We do mention on Homepage now, it's inside of bullet points. But I think it was after this ticket was created.
If the information in the Homepage is not enough we surely can have that on other pages as well. So I think this can be closed right now, if there will be concerns feel free to reopen it.

Note: Also I think we usually prioritize tickets after marking them ready.

Add Comment

Modify Ticket

Change Properties
as closed .
The resolution will be deleted. Next status will be 'reopened'.
to The owner will be changed from (none).
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.