Kyle Hamilton wrote, On 2008-08-22 14:38: > My understanding is that they were not allowed to use the Firefox > brand because its terms of use conflicted with their packaging and > freedom rules. Any additional changes after they changed the brand to > IceWeasel might also affect the ability to use the Firefox brand, but > that wasn't the reason they rebranded it.
OK, I don't know which came first, the rebranding or the additional roots. > But hypothetically... if he truly were running firefox, and they created > a script to run firefox that automatically added SPI and CAcert to the > per-profile DB using certutil on the first run, would that case violate > the terms of branded-firefox distribution? That's a good question for the folks who govern the FF trademark rules. > If a sysadmin did that to implement a site security policy [...], would > that violate terms of branded-firefox site distribution? This question has come up in the context of the CCK (Client Customization Kit), and IIRC, there is a statement somewhere that it's OK as long as you don't distribute the modified client outside of your (company, enterprise, school, etc.}. In my view, there's a big difference between a company's sysadmin doing it for his users and a Linux distro doing it for (potentially) all of planet Earth. But I don't write Mozilla's trademark policy, so my answers are not authoritative for these questions. _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
