[Mageia-dev] -- mozilla branding issues -- was [Seamonkey package]

Wed Feb 8 04:59:45 CET 2012

Julien a écrit :
+> Le Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:04:05 +0100,
+> Florian Hubold<doktor5000 at arcor.de>  a écrit :
+>
+>    
+>> Am 12.01.2012 16:55, schrieb Florian Hubold:
+>>      
+>>> Am 07.01.2012 18:36, schrieb Florian Hubold:
+>>>        
+>>>> Am 16.04.2011 16:05, schrieb Christiaan Welvaart:
+>>>>          
+>>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
+>>>>>
+>>>>>            
+> (...)
+>    
+>> Pinging again, because nobody replied. This should also be discussed
+>> at next packager meeting, together with the situation according the
+>> branding of other mozilla packages. Because we have branding enabled,
+>> which we shouldn't have as we can't use branding AND have modified builds
+>> (different than upstream tarball)
+>> without approval of all modifications from mozilla.
+>>
+>>
+>> For reference, here's the upstream report i was talking about, which i've
+>> recently found again:
+>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555935
+>>
+>> --
+>>
+>> resending because of maintainer mail adress typo
+>>      
+> FTR, the Mozilla trademark policy :
+> https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
+>
+> the relevant part :
+>
+> "	Modifications
+>
+> 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. For example, if the product you've
+> modified is Firefox, you may not use Mozilla or Firefox, in whole or in
+> part, in its name. Also, it would be inappropriate for you to say "based on
+> Mozilla Firefox". Instead, in the interest of complete accuracy, you could
+> describe your executables as "based on Mozilla technology", or
+> "incorporating Mozilla source code." In addition, you may want to read the
+> discussion on the "Powered by Mozilla" logo.
+>
+> In addition, if you compile a modified version, as discussed above, with
+> branding enabled (the default in our source code is branding disabled), you
+> will require Mozilla's prior written permission. If it's not the unmodified
+> installer package from www.mozilla.com, and you want to use our
+> trademark(s), our review and approval of your modifications is required.
+> You also must change the name of the executable so as to reduce the chance
+> that a user of the modified software will be misled into believing it to be
+> a native Mozilla product.
+>
+> Again, any modification to the Mozilla product, including adding to,
+> modifying in any way, or deleting content from the files included with an
+> installer, file location changes, added code, modification of any source
+> files including additions and deletions, etc., will require our permission
+> if you want to use the Mozilla Marks. If you have any doubt, just ask us at
+> trademarks at mozilla.com.
+> "
+>
+> regards
+> Julien
+>
+>    
+The key words seem to be "significant functional changes".
+If we use the Mozilla tarball, and just apply Mozilla patches, we 
+shouldn't require any special permission for that.
+They do say that additionally we would require written permission to 
+compile the source with branding enabled.
+Since the source tarball can be installed wherever the user wants, only 
+changing the relative locations would potentially be problematic.
+
+In any case, I'm in favour of packaging all of 
+Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey, essentially unmodified, and in the 
+extended support versions where available.
+(Not trying to say that we shouldn't package filerunner separately.  Or 
+add security patches not yet added by Mozilla.  Both of which would 
+require approval from Mozilla.)
+
+The suggested -ESR suffix for extended support releases seems a good idea.
+Alternately, we could tag them with the version, but that would be less 
+evident.
+
+-- 
+André
+
+