[Mageia-dev] -- mozilla branding issues -- was [Seamonkey package]

[andre999]

Julien a écrit :
> Le Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:04:05 +0100,
> Florian Hubold<doktor5000 at arcor.de>  a écrit :
>
>    
>> Am 12.01.2012 16:55, schrieb Florian Hubold:
>>      
>>> Am 07.01.2012 18:36, schrieb Florian Hubold:
>>>        
>>>> Am 16.04.2011 16:05, schrieb Christiaan Welvaart:
>>>>          
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>            
> (...)
>    
>> Pinging again, because nobody replied. This should also be discussed
>> at next packager meeting, together with the situation according the
>> branding of other mozilla packages. Because we have branding enabled,
>> which we shouldn't have as we can't use branding AND have modified builds
>> (different than upstream tarball)
>> without approval of all modifications from mozilla.
>>
>>
>> For reference, here's the upstream report i was talking about, which i've
>> recently found again:
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555935
>>
>> --
>>
>> resending because of maintainer mail adress typo
>>      
> FTR, the Mozilla trademark policy :
> https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
>
> the relevant part :
>
> "	Modifications
>
> If you're taking full advantage of the open-source nature of Mozilla's
> products and making significant functional changes, you may not
> redistribute the fruits of your labor under any Mozilla trademark, without
> Mozilla's prior written consent. For example, if the product you've
> modified is Firefox, you may not use Mozilla or Firefox, in whole or in
> part, in its name. Also, it would be inappropriate for you to say "based on
> Mozilla Firefox". Instead, in the interest of complete accuracy, you could
> describe your executables as "based on Mozilla technology", or
> "incorporating Mozilla source code." In addition, you may want to read the
> discussion on the "Powered by Mozilla" logo.
>
> In addition, if you compile a modified version, as discussed above, with
> branding enabled (the default in our source code is branding disabled), you
> will require Mozilla's prior written permission. If it's not the unmodified
> installer package from www.mozilla.com, and you want to use our
> trademark(s), our review and approval of your modifications is required.
> You also must change the name of the executable so as to reduce the chance
> that a user of the modified software will be misled into believing it to be
> a native Mozilla product.
>
> Again, any modification to the Mozilla product, including adding to,
> modifying in any way, or deleting content from the files included with an
> installer, file location changes, added code, modification of any source
> files including additions and deletions, etc., will require our permission
> if you want to use the Mozilla Marks. If you have any doubt, just ask us at
> trademarks at mozilla.com.
> "
>
> regards
> Julien
>
>    
The key words seem to be "significant functional changes".
If we use the Mozilla tarball, and just apply Mozilla patches, we 
shouldn't require any special permission for that.
They do say that additionally we would require written permission to 
compile the source with branding enabled.
Since the source tarball can be installed wherever the user wants, only 
changing the relative locations would potentially be problematic.

In any case, I'm in favour of packaging all of 
Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey, essentially unmodified, and in the 
extended support versions where available.
(Not trying to say that we shouldn't package filerunner separately.  Or 
add security patches not yet added by Mozilla.  Both of which would 
require approval from Mozilla.)

The suggested -ESR suffix for extended support releases seems a good idea.
Alternately, we could tag them with the version, but that would be less 
evident.

-- 
André