> why should it make a license non-free that it only allows use of the
> trademarks non-commercially?
Normally it wouldn't. But if the software license requires use of the same
name for unmodified versions, that combination results in freedom 2
effectively being restricted.
> Does it only allows use of the trademarks non-commercially? It seems you
can
> freely use them for unmodified versions.
If you're talking about the Mozilla trademarks, yes. Part of the trademark
policy is that you can't charge for a Mozilla program that includes its
Mozilla trademark(s).
