I am not sure, but if i understand correctly: Since the ebuilds allow to change the build via useflags, and since patches are applied in some cases, it is not allowed to use the name "mozilla-firefox" for example. The same problem possibly exists with the -bin packages, dunno (Never used them.) Could someone please review this? IANAL, and law-text confuses me :) The same discussion is currently done in the Debian-camp, which is why i noticed. A direct link to the (hopefully) correct document is above. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
I don't think so. We're providing "build rules". It's an issue for live cd's and the *-bin releases, though.
like chris said, this only affects our livecds and GRP since using ebuilds isnt redistribution
Point 6 is the one I could see causing some problems. To save you some time, here it is: Any software installer may be removed and the products may be pre-installed on PCs, as part of operating system distributions, or distributed with a different installer as part of a bundle of software, provided, however, that the result of such bundling or pre-installation shall be no different then if the end user had downloaded and installed the software directly from mozilla.org. Eg. all files should be installed in the same location where they would be installed by the Mozilla installers, and no additional software should be installed (e.g. plugins or extensions). Any of the above changes may also be made post-installation. ... Distributors can start using the Firefox and Thunderbird trademarks as soon as they have returned a signed copy agreeing to the terms of this trademark policy, along with their name and contact information, to the Mozilla Foundation, 1350 Villa Street, Suite C, Mountain View, CA 94041-1126, USA. The Mozilla Foundation may require distributors to stop using the Mozilla trademarks in the future if they are redistributing software with low quality or if the distribution is otherwise damaging to the reputation of the Mozilla Foundation and efforts to remedy the situation have not succeeded. My interpretation of point 6 says we're perfectly within our rights, until we apply source code patches. Patches to simply change the default build configuration are irrelevant, because a user could manually do that at build time by just reading the docs on building or whatever on pristine mozilla.org source. But patches that change functionality should probably be excluded on USE=bindist. Also, it seems apparent that we need to either send in that agreement or stop using the trademarks on distributed binaries -- see the "Iceweasel" section on http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html, which specifies that "Anyone making significant functional changes to the browser would be at this level." I suppose that comes down to whether our patches are "significant."
Our patches have been reviewed by mozilla developers and the Mozilla licensing team. They have no problems with the patches we're applying, and therefore no problem with us distributing our build in binary form on the CD's. The only issue we have is with Mozilla itself, and the inclusion of the enigmail extension into our ebuild. This needs to be removed before we can distribute binaries or use the 'official' build flag. Since we don't (as far as I know) distribute Mozilla on the livecd's it hasn't been a big priority. But it would be nice to make enigmail its own ebuild (with mozilla/thunderbird local USE flags, so that it can tell what it's building against).
We definitely supply mozilla with our releases, and have done so for at *least* the past 1.5 years of GRP.
I think someone responsible and in power to decide here should contact the MozFoundation, and simply ask. Maybe it is possible to convince the Mozilla Foundation, so the Gentoo Foundation can use the names "Mozilla", "Firefox", "Thunderbird", <others> until they remove this right. This means: Until a dev goes mad and applies bad patches, everything will be fine: This would ensure we keep Mozilla's quality, which is their intention to do all those restrictions, and would ensure they can enforce the Trademark, if quality doesnt fullfill their expectations - which wouldnt prevent Gentoo from further redistributing it, but would resitrict the redistribution.
Um, Daniel, did you read comment #4?
I did. But i dont know wether they want to review again and again all the time. Also, the patches Gentoo applies should maybe be adopted by Mozilla, if they consider them good, but thats yet another thing. Besides all this, it looks like someone already worried about this, and considered it solved. Changing Status to INVALID?
This bug is invalid. As Brad mentioned in comment 4, we've been over this stuff with the mozilla team. The inclusion of enigmail (which we'd like to eventually change) is only gating us from using --enable-official-branding; I don't think it matters that we call it "mozilla-firefox", otherwise I would have expected to hear from mozilla.org about it. There's no reason for us to make changes until that occurs.
