License issues

[davidhedlund]

There are no Mozilla License Headers (see https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/headers/) in your source files. Can you please add them?

[Quicksaver]

Those license headers are only required for files uploaded to Mozilla repos. The add-on already includes the full license at the root of the package, which extends to all files within it. The headers are not necessary as I understand it.

[davidhedlund]

Sorry, I didn't told you my purpose with this issue.

You need to add finish this issue so this page can be approved: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Puzzle_Toolbar

The Free Software Directory guidelines require license headers. Only when you have added them your entry can be approved by a moderator like me.

Can you please do this?

[Quicksaver]

I don't understand why that would be necessary. If you're distributing the add-on in the website, as long as its current licensing info is kept (the "LICENSE" file at the root), that should be enough. If you're not distributing it, then it shouldn't make a difference.

I don't want to add more licensing info than is absolutely necessary, and I don't know this website. Why is this necessary and what does it do for the add-on?

[davidhedlund]

"Best practices for maintaining license information

License information can also be maintained in individual files, in a central location, or in some combination of both. Most projects use a hybrid approach, placing the primary license in a top-level COPYING or LICENSE file, and also including some license information in each file’s header." - https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html

License headers are absolutely necessary (see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html for example of GPL).

"grep for 'copyright' to see what some of the program headers say. A typical header will reference the license and may mention how you're allowed combine it with other files and if you may upgrade the license. If the headers reference non-free licenses then we have a problem." - https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Requirements

https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Puzzle_Toolbar will automatically be listed for the latest GNU IceCat add-on repository (see https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:IceCat_extensions_(proposed) once done.

[Quicksaver]

My only issues are I don't want to spend a whole day attaching headers to over 1k files (I don't have just this add-on and I prefer consistency over anything else), and I'm against it myself because license headers only increase the file sizes to add info that, in this case, is redundant because the licensing is obvious from the single file included in the package and from the info in the add-on's homepage.

But if you want, you're welcome to submit a PR with the headers yourself. ;)

BTW it is already listed at https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IceCat/Puzzle_Toolbars, although the name and version are severely outdated.

[davidhedlund]

What is the current name of the add-on then?

[Quicksaver]

Puzzle Bars: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/puzzle-toolbars/

[davidhedlund]

Thanks. Why are these URLs used instead:

• https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/puzzle-bars/
• https://github.com/Quicksaver/Puzzle-Bars

[Quicksaver]

Changing urls doesn't redirect from the old to the new ones. So bookmarks would be lost, and users using older versions of the add-on (with the old urls) wouldn't be able to reach the right place. I avoid changing urls whenever possible.

[yfdyh000]

Why "urls doesn't redirect from the old to the new ones."? https://help.github.com/articles/renaming-a-repository/

[Quicksaver]

For instance, if I changed to https://github.com/Quicksaver/Puzzle-Bars, the current https://github.com/Quicksaver/Puzzle-Toolbars would no longer work.

[davidhedlund]

This is a separate issue.

[Quicksaver]

I'm sorry this took so long.

[davidhedlund]

No worries, you did it a last.

[davidhedlund]

@Quicksaver Said

Releasing new versions on Addons.Mozilla.Org with the updated files with
the headers is another matter. I have several more things to add and
bugs to fix to the add-ons, so that will definitely take a while. But if
you like I can still notify you when I update those as well.

Richard responded

Please reply when that happens.

This is a long-term issue, not a super hurry.

Can you please re-open this issue until then?

[Quicksaver]

Sure.

[davidhedlund]

@Quicksaver Thank you.

[Quicksaver]

@davidhedlund replied to the e-mail as well. Done. :)

[davidhedlund]

@Quicksaver Thanks.

[davidhedlund]

Previously I recommended a modification of the GPL guidelines which was wrong. Now I've had a fresh look on the actual license.

From https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/

If it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice.

With other words, you can choose to use LICENSE, but no license notices in the source files.