On Thursday 12 October 2006 4:57 am, Tobias Ulmer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 10:19:45PM -0700, Ted Unangst wrote: > > On 10/11/06, David Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >AFAIK, no, but I was hoping to glean that information from the list... > > > > > >On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 23:31 -0500, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: > > >> is someone planning on making a OpenBSD port for IceWeasel? > > > > and the point would be? what makes iceweasel a better browser than firefox? > > > > > > It's a legal issue. I've asked Mike Connor recently about the trademark > problems and his answers were quite clear to me (applies to unofficial > builds): > > - Currently mozilla takes no actions against the "firefox" executable > or package name (because applications depend on the name), however > it's not legal. > > - 'Firefox(r)' Community Edition is a trademark of mozilla. Its > use is tolerated as long as we don't modify "firefox" too much (as > outlined in [1] under "Community Releases"). > > Afaik our packages are not legal unless we have a secret partnership > with mozilla. [2] links to all releveant documents.
Did you intentionally leave out the document that describes "Community Editions"? "Porting the software to different operating systems" is specifically allowed in the Community Edition Policy: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html Declaring our port is not legal without details is irresponsible and informatory. Please state specifically what part of their policy we are violating. > > Personally i would like to see the same strict policy we use against > vendors like Intel, Mavell etc applied to Mozilla, but thats just me > (yes i know, base != ports). > > Tobias > > [1] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/l10n-policy.html > [2] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/index.html
