Vlad J. wrote:
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.
It is not, unless you have written permission. I don't think that the
people that could say "not" bluntly are reading this newsgroup, but
you'd have to have a much better case than the one you provided so far
to make me give you good chances.
One question you would need to answer is how many additional users in
which region that would give to Firefox, and I'd expect someone reading
that mail to wait for marketshare-relevant numbers. Even then, changing
the compilation options may not be the compromise that Mozilla feels
like doing, given that you're likely talking about regressing the
startup performance, at the very least. Extension compatibility is
another question that would need to be answered.
The discussion that I have followed have been about establishing a
partnership, it's usually not some "yeah, whatever, fine". Those answers
tend to end in a "no".
Anyway, the 'legal' part of this discussion is done, the rest is a
product distribution question, which belongs into the sink that is given
in the trademarks documents.
Axel
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
