Hi Axel, Thanks for warnings, I'm only worrying if it's legal to create packaged FireFox compiled with my options and make it available online under name containing "FireFox" word. I explained it in my original question that I repeat below:
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) TIA, -jv "Axel Hecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Vlad J. wrote: > > 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. > > Mozilla does care about updates, a lot. That's why Mozilla may not > approve the use of the Firefox trademark for an application that is not > going to get timely security updates, or where the user experience of > those updates is bad. > And creating incremental updates, and making them available to end-users > is a magic that Mozilla hasn't published so far. > > If you're only worrying about using your embedding app on the intranet, > what keeps you from installing and embedding version of gecko which does > security updates on your schedule next to a proper Firefox installation > which does security updates on a Mozilla schedule? That keeps your users > safe in the wild, and your workload down to an acceptable level. > > Axel > > > "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
