Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>