[Mageia-dev] Seamonkey package

[nicolas vigier]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, andre999 wrote:

> nicolas vigier a écrit :
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quote: Christiaan Welvaart wrote on Thu, 10 March 2011 23:26
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, nicolas vigier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately the seamonkey name and logos are trademarked and the
>>>> license
>>>>>> terms are most likely not acceptable so it seems to me we'll have
>>>> to
>>>>>> rename/rebrand it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it different than firefox license terms ?
>>>>
>>>> Same rules AFAIK, see
>>>>     http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
>
> Indeed, exactly the same rules.
>
>>> I don't see why we need to change the name. The policy says:
>>>
>>> "If you compile Mozilla unmodified source code (including code and config
>>> files in the installer) and do not charge for it, you do not need
>>> additional permission from Mozilla to use the relevant Mozilla Mark(s) for
>>> your compiled version."
>>
>> We are not using unmodified source code for firefox :
>> http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/firefox/current/SOURCES/
>
> Many of these entries seem to be just modified changelog entries.  (And of 
> course, unmodified imports have changelog entries.)

It's not patches on the changelog ... Did you read any of the patches ?

>
>> And it seems mandriva seamonkey package also has some patchs :
>> http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/seamonkey/current/SOURCES/
>
> These are mosty against obsolete versions of Seamonkey. (Which may predate 
> the current Mozilla policy.)

This is the package for version 2.0.12, which is the latest version,
released 2 weeks ago. Is this what you call an obsolete version ?

And the Mozilla policy is not new, I doubt the patches predate the
policy ...

> Otherwise they just seem to be modified changelog entries.

I don't know where you saw modified changelog entries.

>
> Note also that if applied patches come from Mozilla, that shouldn't require 
> permission.  (And Mozilla issues a lot of patches, particularly for 
> security.)

This is not security patches. Did you look at the patches ?

By the way, did you really see Mozilla issue a lot of patches ?
They usually don't release patch on their ftp server, and only release
new tarballs for new versions when they need to fix security issues.

And did you really see anything in the policy talking about patches
coming from Mozilla, or is it just an other random statement ?

>
> As well, we don't use the logo for advertising, we are just repackaging the 
> software as part of our distribution.

We are using the logo and the name, so we need to follow the policy (or
use rebranded version).

> It might install in a somewhat different location, but that doesn't change 
> the contained binaries or scripts.  Also, binaries distributed by Mozilla 
> without installer (in a compressed file) can be installed (almost) anywhere 
> one likes.

The list of changes that require permision to use the Mozilla Marks
includes "file location changes". Did you read the policy ?

>> Also the "do not charge for it" would make it non free (but it does not
>> seem to be mentioned in the "Modifications" section, only in the
>> "Unaltered Binaries" section).
>
> Why would "do not charge for it" make it non-free ?
> That doesn't seem to be a requirement of open source.  Although charging 
> for it is generally permitted in unmodified open source licenses.

Did you read the open source definition ?
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
First line says : "The license shall not restrict any party from selling
or giving away the software ..."

So you're talking about patches that you didn't read. You're talking
about a policy that you didn't read. You're talking about "open source"
while you didn't read the definition. It would be nice if you could stop
sending emails with almost only false informations, and instead only
talk about what you know, or take the time to check what you're saying.

>> So maybe we need to request permission, as explained in the
>> "Modifications" section.
>
> I don't think we need to, but we can always confirm via 
> trademarks at mozilla.com

It probably won't be a problem to get permission, but we need to ask.
I think Romain plans to see this with people from Mozilla europe.