Re: legal question

Vlad J. wrote:
> Hello Axel,
> 
> Thanks for head up.
> 
> Probably approval is required if some modifications are to be made or have
> made.
> From the scenario I explained there will be no modifications in source code.
> If nevertheless you're sure that approval is still required, could you
> please point me out the docs or URL where I would proceed with?
> 
> Regarding updates, I would not care about them. For surfing the internet the
> original FireFox is good enough. What is supposed to do is
> package for intranet works where vulnerabilities plays very little role. And
> anyway, updates even minor and sub-minor ones could be handled easily.
> All building process is automated and it's not a big deal to provide fresh
> version with very little delay after the official release.
> 
> Yet I feel that my original question is still not targeted. I'd like to make
> it clear if what I described is allowed or not.

Mozilla does care about updates, a lot. That's why Mozilla may not 
approve the use of the Firefox trademark for an application that is not 
going to get timely security updates, or where the user experience of 
those updates is bad.
And creating incremental updates, and making them available to end-users 
is a magic that Mozilla hasn't published so far.

If you're only worrying about using your embedding app on the intranet, 
what keeps you from installing and embedding version of gecko which does 
security updates on your schedule next to a proper Firefox installation 
which does security updates on a Mozilla schedule? That keeps your users 
safe in the wild, and your workload down to an acceptable level.

Axel

> "Axel Hecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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
> 
>