nicolas vigier a écrit :
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, andre999 wrote:
nicolas vigier a écrit :
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
Quote: Christiaan Welvaart wrote on Thu, 10 March 2011 23:26
----------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, nicolas vigier wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
Unfortunately the seamonkey name and logos are trademarked and the
license
terms are most likely not acceptable so it seems to me we'll have
to
rename/rebrand it.
Is it different than firefox license terms ?
Same rules AFAIK, see
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
Indeed, exactly the same rules.
I don't see why we need to change the name. The policy says:
"If you compile Mozilla unmodified source code (including code and config
files in the installer) and do not charge for it, you do not need
additional permission from Mozilla to use the relevant Mozilla Mark(s) for
your compiled version."
...
And it seems mandriva seamonkey package also has some patchs :
http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/seamonkey/current/SOURCES/
These are mosty against obsolete versions of Seamonkey. (Which may predate
the current Mozilla policy.)
This is the package for version 2.0.12, which is the latest version,
released 2 weeks ago. Is this what you call an obsolete version ?
Didn't notice that, about 5 pages down. And they were mostly
localisation modules, I assume unmodified. In any case, most
correctives should be available in (Mozilla) cvs.
There were pages of entries for the obsolete versions 1.17 or before,
which I believe predates the Mozilla policy change.
And the Mozilla policy is not new, I doubt the patches predate the
policy ...
...
Note also that if applied patches come from Mozilla, that shouldn't require
permission. (And Mozilla issues a lot of patches, particularly for
security.)
This is not security patches. Did you look at the patches ?
Whatever, they could come from Mozilla.
If a bug is found, it can easily be submitted to Mozilla, and applied
once accepted, from cvs -- which doesn't have to await another release.
By the way, did you really see Mozilla issue a lot of patches ?
They usually don't release patch on their ftp server, and only release
new tarballs for new versions when they need to fix security issues.
And did you really see anything in the policy talking about patches
coming from Mozilla, or is it just an other random statement ?
Did you happen to notice the references to obtaining the source code
from (Mozilla) cvs ?
Surprisingly, that is where they put their patches. And no, it is not a
random statement. I have downloaded Mozilla patches from cvs.
(Much if not most are to scripts, very easily applied without even
recompiling.)
As well, we don't use the logo for advertising, we are just repackaging the
software as part of our distribution.
We are using the logo and the name, so we need to follow the policy (or
use rebranded version).
We are not using the logo and name outside of the product itself, which
as I understand remains unchanged.
It might install in a somewhat different location, but that doesn't change
the contained binaries or scripts. Also, binaries distributed by Mozilla
without installer (in a compressed file) can be installed (almost) anywhere
one likes.
The list of changes that require permision to use the Mozilla Marks
includes "file location changes". Did you read the policy ?
I read it. Are you saying that an installer version is chosen and the
install locations are changed, or that a non-installer version is
chosen, and the relative locations are changed by Mageia compiles ?
If it wasn't clear, my point is that we can work around that without
problem.
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.
Did you read the open source definition ?
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
First line says : "The license shall not restrict any party from selling
or giving away the software ..."
You forgot the rest of the sentence, which reads : "... as a component
of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several
different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee
for such sale."
In other words, no bar on forbidding the sale of a particular component
in itself. Which, as I understand it, is compatible with the position
of Mozilla.
In a previous post in this thread, I pointed out that the FSF considers
the Xinetd license to be a free software license, albeit not compatible
with GPL. The Xinetd license contains a clause not permitting selling
the software.
See <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Xinetd_License>
You're talking about a policy that you didn't read.
Or perhaps you didn't understand what I said ...
You're talking about "open source" while you didn't read the definition.
Or more exactly, that you didn't finish reading the sentence. Or maybe
you didn't understand ?
Note that you chose the OSI definition of open source -- and evidently.
there are others.
It would be nice if you could stop sending emails with almost only false
informations, and instead only
talk about what you know, or take the time to check what you're saying.
Sorry that you feel so challenged by differing opinions ...
So maybe we need to request permission, as explained in the
"Modifications" section.
I don't think we need to, but we can always confirm via
[email protected]
It probably won't be a problem to get permission, but we need to ask.
I think Romain plans to see this with people from Mozilla europe.
Like I said, we can always confirm.
Btw, it's great to have these nice friendly discussions, with free and
open exchange of opinion -- don't you think ? :)
--
André
