[Mageia-dev] Seamonkey package

Thu Mar 17 23:24:17 CET 2011

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."
+>
+> We are not using unmodified source code for firefox :
+> http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/firefox/current/SOURCES/
+
+Many of these entries seem to be just modified changelog entries.  (And 
+of course, unmodified imports have changelog entries.)
+
+> 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.)
+Otherwise they just seem to be modified changelog entries.
+
+Note also that if applied patches come from Mozilla, that shouldn't 
+require permission.  (And Mozilla issues a lot of patches, particularly 
+for security.)
+
+As well, we don't use the logo for advertising, we are just repackaging 
+the software as part of our distribution.
+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.
+
+> 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.
+
+This addition to their policy was a reaction to commercial sites that 
+were abusing open source norms, and selling modified versions of Mozilla 
+products using the Mozilla reputation, logos, and trademark, to make a 
+profit.  Some sites used deceptive practices to deliver only partially 
+functional versions, for which they charged more to enable missing 
+functions.  Which obviously didn't help Mozilla's reputation.
+
+> 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 
+trademarks at mozilla.com
+
+-- 
+André
+