On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM, 甘露(Gan Lu) wrote:

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Denis Kobozev wrote:

...

Hi archers,

If you believe the comment on Mozilla's bugtracker [1] and the change to the license file [2], the previously non-free Firefox graphics are now licensed under the MPL. Does that mean that we'll be able to have official logo in the supported Firefox package?

[1]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=541761#c3 [2]: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/99d80bc3f18b

And NAME of Firefox too?

...

Denis.

Stop dreaming, this only looks like a legal wording change. If I understood correctly, the name and icon change that most distributions are forced to do is because of the trademark, not because of the logo license. If you are bored, read more about it there : http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html What is completely retarded about the whole story is that MANY apps need minor patches and customization in order to build or fit in a specific system or distribution. There is not much to do about that, it's not a big problem either, that's just the way it is. Just look at a LFS install for example and see the number of patches you need, just to get a basic vanilla linux system up. Mozilla actually contradicts itself on this matter. These are not functional changes at all, and somewhere in the tradermark policy, it is written : "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. " I don't see how the minimum set of changes that Arch needs to apply qualify as significant functional changes, it's VERY far from that. http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/packages/firefox/trunk/ But just below, the trademark policy then says this : "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@mozilla.com." Seriously wtf ? Is it any modification, or significant functional changes ? Make your mind ! PS : IANAL and I only very quickly read a few lines in the above link, so my interpretation could very well be wrong.

On 05/02/2010 08:28 PM, Denis Kobozev wrote:

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Xavier Chantry

...

Mozilla actually contradicts itself on this matter. [...] But just below, the trademark policy then says this : "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@mozilla.com."

Why not do like we're told then, and send them an email? "Arch has such and such package, with such and such modifications. Firefox logo is now under MPL and it looks like we can add it to our package. Can we?".

Denis.

seems that you are not very inform about the lwn article about mozilla and trademark [1]. They don't want us to modifying anything without asking for permission. For us that will never happen because we have shared xulrunner, we use system libs(they don't like that at all). [1] http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/384828/196108ecd70c38ae/ -- Ionut

At Sonntag, 2. Mai 2010 19:31 Ionut Biru wrote:

They don't want us to modifying anything without asking for permission. For us that will never happen because we have shared xulrunner, we use system libs(they don't like that at all).

opensuse has "enable-official-branding" in their specfile and use system libs with a shared xulrunner too. So from my view you can ask them but i'm not an expert of it because i use my own package (kde integration). Perhaps this is more a problem for Debian than for archlinux. See you, Attila

Am oder ungefähr am Montag, 03. Mai 2010, 09:02:50 schrieb Allan McRae:

Search for a script called firebrand. Problem solved.

There is also firefox-branded on the AUR. Ed

Allan

On Sun, 2010-05-02 at 13:28 -0400, Denis Kobozev wrote:

Why not do like we're told then, and send them an email? "Arch has such and such package, with such and such modifications. Firefox logo is now under MPL and it looks like we can add it to our package. Can we?".

We did that before, and we got permission to ship with branding. The issue here is that whenever we update the package or add/remove a patch, we have to ask for permission again. This doesn't look a big problem for you, but it means that we have to stick to a schedule to get releases to the repository. Right now we package firefox releases as soon as it lands on upstream FTP. With the approval policy, it will take days or even weeks before we can package a new firefox version.

At Montag, 3. Mai 2010 09:07 Jan de Groot wrote:

lands on upstream FTP. With the approval policy, it will take days or even weeks before we can package a new firefox version.

The opensuse repository get sometimes updated 3 or 4 times in one week. Have them another policy? But no question what you and Allan said is not a productive way. See you, Attila