Thanks for reply. Would you please tell me why FireFox can't be used for trademarking FireFox and only FireFox? As I explained before, nothing will be bundled and nothing will be changed, except one option for compiler. Firfox and its dll libraries will be avialable under their original names and with their original sources. So I thought and was almost sure that this way is okay with MPL. If it is still not allowed, would you please point me out to the prohibiting MPL statements?
Thanks for pointing out to XULRunner, but seems it is a completely different thing, an XPCOM-based environgment for running applications. We do not need this. Thanks, Dmitri. "Benjamin Smedberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Vlad J. wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Company I'm working for is going to embed FireFox browser into their > > commercial application. > > From MPL it's clear that this is allowed. But it's hardly possible to embed > > FireFox browser to anywhere, because it's compiled this way. > > So I have a question. Is it allowed/permitted to build FireFox with > > different compiler options and distribute resulting package with commercial > > applications and standalone under the conditions below? > > > > -all compiler options that will be changed are taken from Mozilla web site > > -original sources used for building FireFox are left non-modified > > -no additional sources are added to FireFox > > -no additional extension are added > > -copyright and other legal stuff (logos, tm) will remain untouched > > -package will be made freely available online. > > -package name will contain FireFox in its name (for example embeddable > > FireFox or FireFox for embedding etc) > > No. For embedding, you typically want to build XULRunner and not Firefox in > any case. If you actually do want a browser, you should build it without the > Firefox trademarked name. > > --BDS _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
