Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> > As a related observation, it seems very odd to me that Netscape
> > chose to open the source of its entire Communicator code base, and
> > set up a "Mozilla" project to look after it, but didn't give the
> > project rights to the cute green Mozilla graphics...
>...
> Mitchell Baker told me that Netscape-the-business, not mozilla.org,
> holds the copyright to it.
Then why are the Open Directory Project allowed to use (and modify) it?
Since both are open-source projects, it seems strange that one is
allowed to use the green lizard and the other is not.
I would guess that the criteria go along the lines of , 'Is it a product or service that its advertising which is either in competition with us or could reflect upon us?'. If the answer is yes then they wouldn't want Netscape associated with it, regardless of how much source coincided. I think the original decision not to use the green original may have been a wish to draw a line under that history.
As for why Open Directory gets to use it its probably just the normal inconsistency of life.
I do think that distributors or modifiers of Mozilla should be able to use an authorised image from mozilla.org, the criteria would be adherence to the NPL/MPL licencing.
Simon
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
Mozilla UI decisions made within 48 hours, or the next one is free
Beware knowledge cheaply gained for in the spending of it you may pay more than its worth.
S. P. Lucy
