Axel, Thanks for the explanation, but I'd love to get an idea if this http://www.iol.ie/%7Elocka/mozilla/mozilla.htm falls into legal conditions or not. Indeed, no one can ever create ActiveX from Mozilla sources with all the default compiler switches, hence they are merely changed. All the sources remain the same. Adam Lock compiled all the stuff, wrapped up into installer (he created his own installation script) and looks like everything is legal. Any comments?
-jv "Axel Hecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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
