Hi Guys, I really do think Conrad is on the right track with a "Community Edition" release being the perfect solution here.
Here is a comment I wrote in another discussion group before I was directed to re-read this thread for Conrad's comment: > See: > http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/l10n-policy.html > > Look under "Community Releases" for the following passages: > > First: > > A Community Release is what an official L10n team does when they feel > > they can't live within all the restrictions necessary to make an official > > release. We expect some official L10n teams to produce both Official and > > Community releases. The basic idea is that more things can be changed, > > but you have to label the result "Community Edition". > > Then: > > You can't prefix the name with Mozilla (eg "Mozilla Firefox Community > > Edition" is not allowed) or use the official Firefox or Thunderbird logos > > to identify the software. You can, of course, still use the unofficial > > ones. > > http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html > > And in the "Mozilla Community Edition Policy" for the following passages: > > A Community Edition is a version of Mozilla software that has some set of > > customizations beyond those normally allowed under the Mozilla Trademark > > Policy. > > > > If an individual or organization is creating a Community Edition of > > Mozilla Firefox or Thunderbird, it must use the names "Firefox Community > > Edition" or "Thunderbird Community Edition" to identify this software. > > These names may be further qualified to identify the software > > (e.g. "Firefox Community Edition, French", "Thunderbird Community > > Edition, Joe's optimized AMD Opteron build", etc.). Localizers may also > > translate the words "Community Edition". > > > > You may not prefix the name product with "Mozilla" (e.g. "Mozilla Firefox > > Community Edition" is not allowed.) nor use the official Firefox or > > Thunderbird logos to identify the software. You can, of course, still use > > the unofficial ones. > > So there certainly IS the possibility of Debian performing a release > called "Debian Firefox Community Edition" with binaries called "firefox" > that do not (and indeed, are not allowed to) use the Firefox logo. If Debian can bring their patchset into compliance that satisfies Mike Connor, I don't see that there is really any remaining problem. Unless Mike is retracting the two policies quoted above? I guess the only remaining question is whether or not there is a convenient build-time configuration to build these Community Edition/Releases. How would a group intending to release a Community Edition/Release go about doing so? Would it just be a non-official release with specific branding that happens to include "Firefox" in part of the name? Regards, Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
