Re: legal question

Vlad J. wrote:
> Axel,
> 
> Thanks for the explanation, but I'd love to get an idea if this
> http://www.iol.ie/%7Elocka/mozilla/mozilla.htm  falls into legal conditions
> or not.
> Indeed, no one can ever create ActiveX from Mozilla sources with all the
> default compiler switches, hence they are merely changed. All the sources
> remain the same.
> Adam Lock compiled all the stuff, wrapped up into installer (he created his
> own installation script) and looks like everything is legal.
> Any comments?

That code does not use the Firefox trademark, and therefore this whole
discussion about trademark licensing is moot. I'm pretty sure that you can
compile the ActiveX control against XULRunner and use it just fine, without
any mention of Firefox at all.

The important point here is that if you use "firefox" branding anywhere, you
need to get a trademark license. If you just use the code without the
Mozilla-owned trademarks (Firefox, Thunderbird, Mozilla *), you can do
pretty much anything you want.

--BDS