Re: [Hampshire] Iceweasel

>> [1] The Mozilla page keeps talking about "tri-licencing", implying that
>> Mozilla products are released under MPL, GPL, and LGPL simultaneously.
>> If
>> this is the case, I really can't see how they have a leg to stand on; if
>> I
>> can licence their source under GPL, I have rights to everything that's
>> included - which covers names and logos.
>
> This is the case, the problem is that Mozilla corp. have a trademark
> on the names Firefox and Thunderbird (plus several others), as well
> as trademarks on their branding.
>
> They are free to deny use of these trademarks for any reason they
> like, and that is a separate matter than the license under which the
> software is distributed.

That's their position; I'm not sure it actually stacks up.

Section 3 of the GPLv2 (under which this is allegedly licenced) clearly
states :-

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following"

<SNIP stuff about guaranteeing access to the source code>

So if Mozilla are attempting to prevent me from copying/distributing
Firefox under sections 1 or 2 of the GPL, they are in breach of that GPL.

If they've licenced this under GPL, I reckon that contains an implicit
licence to use their trademark as well[1].

> They have chosen to deny use of the various trademarks unless
> distributors use all their branding and apply only patches approved
> by them. They claim that they cannot allow their brand to be
> diluted by allowing things that aren't their version of Firefox (at
> al) to be called that.

Yes. I think this will either end up with them recanting on that position,
or else Firefox will suddenly be "beaten" in the browser stakes by this
new upstart, IceWeasel :-)

Vic.

[1] IANAL, obviously, but I think I'm going to go talk to a few people who
are...