Le vendredi 18 mars 2011 à 01:00 +0100, nicolas vigier a écrit : > On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Michael Scherer wrote: > > > Le jeudi 17 mars 2011 à 18:24 -0400, andre999 a écrit : > > > nicolas vigier a écrit : > > > > > > Also the "do not charge for it" would make it non free (but it does not > > > > seem to be mentioned in the "Modifications" section, only in the > > > > "Unaltered Binaries" section). > > > > > > Why would "do not charge for it" make it non-free ? > > > That doesn't seem to be a requirement of open source. Although charging > > > for it is generally permitted in unmodified open source licenses. > > > > So that mean that someone cannot ask money for selling a cdrom with it, > > since it would be charging for the software. > > > > That's clearly a restriction of usage. So we need to rebrand it. > > It seems this restriction only applies to "Unaltered Binaries" > distribution.
Yup, but then for altered binaries, we just cannot use the brand, see "modification" : "If you're taking full advantage of the open-source nature of Mozilla's products and making significant functional changes, you may not redistribute the fruits of your labor under any Mozilla trademark, without Mozilla's prior written consent." I do understand their position, and I also know that they need to defend their trademark ( as not doing would prevent them from defending later, as some lawyer explained to me one day ), so I do not blame them. But if we wish to respect their policy ( and that's what we both wish ), we will likely need to change the name, or to move it to tainted or non-free ( because either trademark issues preventing distribution or removal of a basic freedom would be a reason to do so ). -- Michael Scherer