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

Wed Feb 8 10:54:48 CET 2012

Am 08.02.2012 04:59, schrieb andre999:
+> 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.
+>
+Please get your facts straight, most patches we apply are not mozilla patches,
+and we do significant modifications. And please don't compare this to installing
+the mozilla tarball, this just doesn't fly.
+