[gobolinux-users] GoboLinux 013rc1 is out!

[Andy Feldman]

On 10/15/06, André Detsch <detsch at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, the package included is the official binary, so, as far as I
> understood the comments, there should not be a problem to distribute
> it as "Firefox".

I agree with your understanding that we can distribute a package made
from the official binary and include the official logos and name, and
I think it's a good idea on the LiveCD and for the Package store. From
their Trademark policy: "You may distribute unchanged official
binaries downloaded from Mozilla.org to anyone in any way subject to
governing law, without receiving any further permission from Mozilla.
However, you must not remove or change any part of the official
binary, including Mozilla trademarks."
(http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html)

If we have a recipe for it (which will naturally use nonstandard
config options to work with Gobo) we have to call it a Community
Edition and only include unofficial logos, as per the policy here:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html.
(Note the last entry in the list.) I believe this is what the current
recipe (1.5.0.6) does, although my title bar incorrectly includes
"Mozilla" before the Community Edition name. Kudos to whoever set that
recipe up in (near-) compliance with the policy already.

If we want to patch it to an extent that is beyond merely "porting,"
then we are in Debian's position of either having to get them
approved, or not use the Firefox name. However, I'd imagine any
patches that just enforce Gobo-specific conventions would be
considered "porting" and would fall under the Community Edition. If
the other patches are approved for Red Hat and Mozilla is being
unresponsive, I think that's justification to use those patches with
the official name/logo until further notice.

By the way, please do fix the capitalization in the recipe and package
store. I mentioned this some time ago to Lucas, but the change clearly
did not propagate. It occasionally confuses the Scripts on my system
since I am using the corrected capitalization (which violates the
case-insensitivity invariant).

Thanks,
-Andy