Re: legal question

Vlad J. wrote:
> Dear  Thorsten,
> 
> Thanks for forwaring me that attachment and pointing out to trademarks and
> copyright.
> I'm not quite sure I got the idea where trademarks might be abused in
> explained scenario. Well, let me ask another question:
> Am I allowed to distribute FireFox that I downloaded from non-mozilla web
> site?
> Suppose, it is _exactly_ binary copy of what is provided from mozilla?
> 
> I'm just trying to get the idea where the boundary lies (if any).
> 

I'm not convinced this is a fruitful thread, at this point. Let's get 
back to the facts.

Yes, there are Mozilla-approved modified versions of Firefox out there. 
The big issue with distributing Firefox, though, is not putting a binary 
on a website, but to maintain and ship security updates for that binary.

So apart from the nitty-gritty details like "does that compiler switch 
impact extensions compatibility (both ways)", from a distribution point 
of view, you really don't want to distribute Firefox. As that includes 
maintaining that distribution.

Axel

> 
> Moin,
> 
> * Vlad J. wrote (2006-12-03 20:50):
>> Would you please tell me why FireFox can't be used for trademarking FireFox
>> and only FireFox?
>> As I explained before, nothing will be bundled and nothing will be changed,
>> except one option for compiler.
>> Firfox and its dll libraries will be avialable under their original names
>> and with their original sources.
>> So I thought and was almost sure that this way is okay with MPL.
>> If it is still not allowed, would you please point me out to the
> prohibiting
>> MPL statements?
> 
> There is no MPL statement about this. The Firefox marks are not
> covered by MPL, but by their own rules:
>     http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/
> 
> 
> Thorsten