legal question

Hello,

Company I'm working for is going to embed FireFox browser into their
commercial application.
>From MPL it's clear that this is allowed. But it's hardly possible to embed
FireFox browser to anywhere, because it's compiled this way.
So I have a question.  Is it allowed/permitted to build FireFox with
different compiler options and distribute resulting package with commercial
applications and standalone under the conditions below?

-all compiler options that will be changed are taken from Mozilla web site
-original sources used for building FireFox are left non-modified
-no additional sources are added to FireFox
-no additional extension are added
-copyright and other legal stuff (logos, tm) will remain untouched
-package will be made freely available online.
-package name will contain FireFox in its name (for example embeddable
FireFox or FireFox for embedding etc)

Re: legal question

Vlad J. wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Company I'm working for is going to embed FireFox browser into their
> commercial application.
> From MPL it's clear that this is allowed. But it's hardly possible to embed
> FireFox browser to anywhere, because it's compiled this way.
> So I have a question.  Is it allowed/permitted to build FireFox with
> different compiler options and distribute resulting package with commercial
> applications and standalone under the conditions below?
> 
> -all compiler options that will be changed are taken from Mozilla web site
> -original sources used for building FireFox are left non-modified
> -no additional sources are added to FireFox
> -no additional extension are added
> -copyright and other legal stuff (logos, tm) will remain untouched
> -package will be made freely available online.
> -package name will contain FireFox in its name (for example embeddable
> FireFox or FireFox for embedding etc)

No. For embedding, you typically want to build XULRunner and not Firefox in
any case. If you actually do want a browser, you should build it without the
Firefox trademarked name.

--BDS

Re: legal question

Thanks for reply.
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?

Thanks for pointing out to XULRunner, but seems it is a completely different
thing, an XPCOM-based
environgment for running applications. We do not need this.

Thanks,
Dmitri.

"Benjamin Smedberg" <benjamin <at> smedbergs.us> wrote in message
news:e_ydncexbPWCl-7YnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d <at> mozilla.org...
> Vlad J. wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Company I'm working for is going to embed FireFox browser into their
> > commercial application.
> > From MPL it's clear that this is allowed. But it's hardly possible to
embed
> > FireFox browser to anywhere, because it's compiled this way.
> > So I have a question.  Is it allowed/permitted to build FireFox with
> > different compiler options and distribute resulting package with

Re: legal question

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
--

-- 
Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet.
The sooner people accept this, and build business models that take
this into account, the sooner people will start making money again.
    - Bruce Schneier

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal

Re: legal question

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).

TIA.
-jv

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

Re: legal question

Hi,

* Vlad J. wrote (2006-12-03 23:28):
>Thanks for forwaring me that attachment (...)

What attachment? If there was a file on my mail, it wasn't mine.

>I'm not quite sure I got the idea where trademarks might be abused in
>explained scenario.

Neither do I. I just pointed out the the trademark follows differnt
rules than the code. That even lead one Linux distribution to declare
Firefox unfree and roll their own version with its own name and logo.

>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 guess, but you possibly won't get an identical copy with a different
compiler switch.

Thorsten
--

-- 
Getting a thrill out of some stupid quote is a sign of idiocy.
    - turmeric

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.mozilla.org

Re: legal question

Thorsten,
Thanks for reply.

All your postings are done through attachments. Weren't you aware? Check the
sources.

BTW, binaries could never be the same even when produced on one machine and
with exactly the same sources and conditions.
Did you know it? It's simple. File contains datetime stamp in PE header and
at least this will differ. Needless to say that they will be different if
different service packs are applied to the compiler.

Okay, I realize that I need somebody from Mozilla to answer my question and
shed some light on this.

TIA.
-jv

Hi,

* Vlad J. wrote (2006-12-03 23:28):
>Thanks for forwaring me that attachment (...)

What attachment? If there was a file on my mail, it wasn't mine.

>I'm not quite sure I got the idea where trademarks might be abused in
>explained scenario.

Neither do I. I just pointed out the the trademark follows differnt
rules than the code. That even lead one Linux distribution to declare

Re: legal question

Hi,

* Vlad J. wrote (2006-12-04 00:34):
>All your postings are done through attachments. Weren't you aware? Check the
>sources.

Ah, that. Sorry, my texts are no attachements, but are marked as
'inline'. They might be shown as attachments though my some mail
programs which don't know better.

(While we're talking about mail form: http://www.vranx.de/mail/tofu.html)

>BTW, binaries could never be the same even when produced on one machine and
>with exactly the same sources and conditions.
>Did you know it? It's simple. File contains datetime stamp in PE header and
>at least this will differ. Needless to say that they will be different if
>different service packs are applied to the compiler.

True. You'd still have no luck with your compiler switch, just as you
(and this is third-hand knowledge) are not allowed to freely
distribute Firefox in any form other than the approved one.

>Okay, I realize that I need somebody from Mozilla to answer my question and
>shed some light on this.

Not necessarily. I think anything is viewable to the public, though
someone might lend a hand at explaining it.

Thorsten
--

-- 

Re: legal question

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,

Re: legal question

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.

Thanks in advance,
-jv

"Axel Hecht" <axel <at> pike.org> wrote in message
news:EdGdnS_fRpbwY-7YnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d <at> mozilla.org...
> Vlad J. wrote:
> > Dear  Thorsten,
> >
> > Thanks for forwaring me that attachment and pointing out to trademarks
and