Quoting zap ([email protected]): > > On 09/23/2017 10:35 PM, Rick Moen wrote: > > Quoting zap ([email protected]): > > > >> Also, palemoon has restrictions on its software which waterfox does not. > >> I believe its on its binaries or executables? I think? > > I've just looked and found no evidence of this. > > > https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml > > the above is my example... of this
Ah, thank you. That essentially amounts to a trademark licence, similar to what Mozilla, Inc. have done in the past (possibly still, not sure) concerning trademark-encumbered logos, images, and other indicia of brand identity. People not wanting to deal with that need only compile their own binaries without Palemoon Productions branding. As is always the case in such matters, they drastically overstate what powers are available to them under trademark law. A lot of this is done by implication, e.g., where they say you have 'obtain no _rights to_ the Pale Moon name or logo' (emphasis added) with your MPL copyright licence. That is true, but misleading: Many uses of other people's trademarked styles, images, logos, etc. don't _require_ permission, but are open to anyone. If interested in this area of law, see: 'Trademark Law' on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/ (I was one of the editors of _Linux Gazette_ magazine when SSC, Inc., then publishers of _Linux Journal_, attempted to push us around using trademark-based threats. We called their bluff. We won.) _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
