| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
qmailqmailPosted Sep 18, 2008 12:41 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: Ignoring the elephant in the room..... by job Parent article: Firefox 3 EULA raises a ruckus The qmail license did not allow the distribution of modified versions at all; the best you could do was to distribute a patch to be applied by the end user.
(Log in to post comments)
qmail Posted Sep 19, 2008 13:02 UTC (Fri) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]
Isn't that situation the same with the official Firefox build? You're not allowed to distribute modified versions of that either.
My example was wrong however, and you are right. I was thinking of netqmail but that was distributed as a patch set.
qmail Posted Sep 19, 2008 15:24 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
There is still a difference between copyright and trademark requirements. You can clearly distribute modified versions of Firefox as source code is licensed under MPL. If you make major changes and distribute the end result, you cannot call it Firefox and Firefox makes it easy to do the rebranding. The debate is really about how far should they enforce it and whether it is going to help them preserve the brand. Being too strict will result in forks. Being too lenient will make them lose their trademarks. They have to find a good balance.
|
|
||||||||||||