Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 03:09:20 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: gecko@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 234020] www/firefox: Do we have prior written permission to patch and use official branding? Message-ID: <bug-234020-21738-E4LmTUAfCF@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-234020-21738@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-234020-21738@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D234020 Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|New |Closed Resolution|--- |Works As Intended --- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Jan Beich from comment #1) > Probably[1] The first document looks promising, but it's unclear what the context was ("your builds are configured so closely to ours") at the time (and it's unc= lear what the time was). (The file has a 2004 timestamp on it, which seems improbable =E2=80=94 that was shortly after the name changed from Firebird.) I guess the written permission in that document is pretty broad, so maybe w= e're still fine. I guess I would feel more comfortable if I knew how our patchs= et today compares with the one from whenever the permission was granted, but, = what the hell. It answers my question/concern. > Mozilla themselves don't provide FreeBSD binaries. Many port patches are > due to lack of manpower to clean up the cruft and upstream the rest. None of this is relevant to Mozilla's exercise of their trademark rights. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-234020-21738-E4LmTUAfCF>