Proposed Clarification to Site Licensing Policy

[Julie Martin]

Mozilla is proposing to clarify the language in our Site Licensing Policy that explains what elements of the web site are not licensed under the Creative Commons license. This language appears at http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/about/legal.html#site (and is part of what is underneath the Legal Notices link). It currently states:

“While our intention is to make most of the content available under the Creative Commons license above, the following material and content is not licensed under the Creative Commons license:
…
• The trademarks and logos of the Mozilla Foundation and any third party, as well as the look and feel of this web site, and to the extent they are works of authorship (like logos and graphic design), they are not included in the work that is licensed under those terms.”

We propose changing this bullet point to read as follows:

"The trademarks and logos of the Mozilla Foundation and any third party and the look and feel of this web site (to the extent the look and feel elements are works of authorship, such as the graphic design, artwork, and illustrations) are not included in the work that is licensed under the Creative Commons terms."

We do not see this is a substantive change, but it will hopefully be clearer.

If you have any thoughts, comments, or suggestions related to this proposal, please let us know.

[fantasai]

Julie Martin wrote:
> Mozilla is proposing to clarify the language in our Site Licensing Policy...

> We propose changing this bullet point to read as follows:
>
> "The trademarks and logos of the Mozilla Foundation and any third party
> and the look and feel of this web site (to the extent the look and feel
> elements are works of authorship, such as the graphic design, artwork,
> and illustrations) are not included in the work that is licensed under
> the Creative Commons terms."
>
> We do not see this is a substantive change, but it will hopefully be clearer.

Including "illustrations" in that might be taken to include diagrams and
other content on the pages, which are things we *do* want to release under
Creative Commons. I agree with the proposed grammatical changes, but I
don't agree with the content-word changes here.

~fantasai

[Julie Martin]

Fantasai,

Thank you for this feedback. If we changed "illustrations" to
"artistic illustrations", would that address your concern? It seems
like this additional word would make a clearer delineation between the
text-based diagrams you are referring to and artistic illustrations
(as opposed to just visual illustrations).

Julie

[Julie Martin]

It seems like there are no further concerns, so we will move forward
with the change proposed above.

Julie