Hello Axel, Thanks for head up.
Probably approval is required if some modifications are to be made or have made. >From the scenario I explained there will be no modifications in source code. If nevertheless you're sure that approval is still required, could you please point me out the docs or URL where I would proceed with? Regarding updates, I would not care about them. For surfing the internet the original FireFox is good enough. What is supposed to do is package for intranet works where vulnerabilities plays very little role. And anyway, updates even minor and sub-minor ones could be handled easily. All building process is automated and it's not a big deal to provide fresh version with very little delay after the official release. Yet I feel that my original question is still not targeted. I'd like to make it clear if what I described is allowed or not. Thanks in advance, -jv "Axel Hecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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
