On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 07:26:15AM -0500, izzy Meyer wrote: > I'm not a legal expert, but I understand that while you can build > Firefox from source, distributing it under the "Firefox" name and > branding requires explicit permission from Mozilla. The MPL is quite > dense, so I'm not entirely sure about the specifics. I *love* copyleft > licenses /s. My understanding is that this is strictly true per the Mozilla Distribution Policy https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/
"However, if you make any changes to Firefox or other Mozilla software, you may not redistribute that product using any Mozilla trademark without Mozilla's prior written consent and, typically, a distribution agreement with Mozilla." and goes lists several egregious examples such as adding a bookmark for your distribution's home page or changing where files are installed. I guess distribution based on on GNU Stow, Nix, etc. are super illegal. For the most part Mozilla intentionally turns a blind eye to it I think? I've never heard of a distribution actually get into a spat over it, I think Debian started the whole Iceweasel thing itself because the trademark restrictions didn't meet their guidelines. Plus OpenBSD is an unusual circumstance by being (kinda) Mozilla Offical-ish? More than most builds at least. tl;dr: you're technically violating the license if you distribute a patched build of Firefox with the trademarks intact, but if you read the trademark policy we're in fact violating the policy right now by saying Firefox instead of Firefox web browser (yes, they really demand this. Mozilla trademarks can only be used as adjectives.) Obviously I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on tv, I don't pretend to be one for fun, etc etc etc. Tekk
