[Mageia-dev] Seamonkey package

Fri Mar 18 02:00:07 CET 2011

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Michael Scherer wrote:
+
+> Le vendredi 18 mars 2011 à 01:00 +0100, nicolas vigier a écrit :
+> > On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Michael Scherer wrote:
+> > 
+> > > Le jeudi 17 mars 2011 à 18:24 -0400, andre999 a écrit :
+> > > > nicolas vigier a écrit :
+> > > 
+> > > > > 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.
+> > > 
+> > > So that mean that someone cannot ask money for selling a cdrom with it,
+> > > since it would be charging for the software. 
+> > > 
+> > > That's clearly a restriction of usage. So we need to rebrand it.
+> > 
+> > It seems this restriction only applies to "Unaltered Binaries"
+> > distribution.
+> 
+> Yup, but then for altered binaries, we just cannot use the brand, see
+> "modification" :
+> 
+> "If you're taking full advantage of the open-source nature of Mozilla's
+> products and making significant functional changes, you may not
+> redistribute the fruits of your labor under any Mozilla trademark,
+> without Mozilla's prior written consent."
+> 
+> I do understand their position, and I also know that they need to defend
+> their trademark ( as not doing would prevent them from defending later,
+> as some lawyer explained to me one day ), so I do not blame them.
+> 
+> But if we wish to respect their policy ( and that's what we both wish ),
+> we will likely need to change the name, or to move it to tainted or
+> non-free ( because either trademark issues preventing distribution or
+> removal of a basic freedom would be a reason to do so ).
+
+Or get permission to use their trademark with our modified version. I
+think that's what most distributions do, and that they give permission
+easily if modifications are small.
+
+I don't think protected trademark is a reason to move to non-free or
+tainted, as software is still free software and can be modified without
+asking permission if name is also changed. Other software we have in
+core also have the same requirements. Apache is a registered trademark,
+and can only be used by software from the apache foundation, so cannot
+be forked without changing name :
+http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
+OpenJDK is also a trademark, that can be used only if "the vast majority
+of the Software code is identical to the upstream Website Software" :
+http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html
+Eclipse is also a registered trademark, and can only be used by eclipse
+projects :
+http://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php
+And I think many other software names or logo are registered trademarks,
+or have a license that require changing name when making important changes.
+
+