[Mageia-dev] Seamonkey package

Fri Mar 18 00:57:40 CET 2011

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."
+>>
+>> 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.)
+
+It's not patches on the changelog ... Did you read any of the patches ?
+
+>
+>> 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 ?
+
+And the Mozilla policy is not new, I doubt the patches predate the
+policy ...
+
+> Otherwise they just seem to be modified changelog entries.
+
+I don't know where you saw 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.)
+
+This is not security patches. Did you look at the patches ?
+
+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 ?
+
+>
+> 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).
+
+> 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 ?
+
+>> 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 ..."
+
+So you're talking about patches that you didn't read. You're talking
+about a policy that you didn't read. You're talking about "open source"
+while you didn't read the definition. 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.
+
+>> 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
+
+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.
+
+