Vlad J. wrote:
Dear Thorsten,
Thanks for forwaring me that attachment and pointing out to trademarks and
copyright.
I'm not quite sure I got the idea where trademarks might be abused in
explained scenario. Well, let me ask another question:
Am I allowed to distribute FireFox that I downloaded from non-mozilla web
site?
Suppose, it is _exactly_ binary copy of what is provided from mozilla?
I'm just trying to get the idea where the boundary lies (if any).
I'm not convinced this is a fruitful thread, at this point. Let's get
back to the facts.
Yes, there are Mozilla-approved modified versions of Firefox out there.
The big issue with distributing Firefox, though, is not putting a binary
on a website, but to maintain and ship security updates for that binary.
So apart from the nitty-gritty details like "does that compiler switch
impact extensions compatibility (both ways)", from a distribution point
of view, you really don't want to distribute Firefox. As that includes
maintaining that distribution.
Axel
Moin,
* Vlad J. wrote (2006-12-03 20:50):
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?
There is no MPL statement about this. The Firefox marks are not
covered by MPL, but by their own rules:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/
Thorsten
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
