[gobolinux-users] GoboLinux 013rc1 is out!

[Jonas Karlsson]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:31:06 +0200, Andy Feldman <nereusren at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> 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)

Agreed, so I too think that official version is the way to go, but an  
updated version that is (actually that is a requirement for redistributing  
it: "If you choose to distribute Mozilla binaries yourself, we request  
that you make available the latest stable version" from  
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.

It's me that has made the recipe. The latest version is 1.5.0.7 and there  
the "Mozilla" issue is fixed (. I'm not sure that Mozilla will keep this  
license valid for long as the are reluctant to having Firefox  
redistributed with name and without official branding.
If you look at the recipe you can see that it isn't that hard to get an  
official branded build, just that I have to do it this way due to te  
license.

>
> 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.

The one and only source patch we have is a bugfix to allow system  
installed NSS and NSPR libraries instead of the versions included in the  
Firefox tarball and the patch is "stolen" from lfs, which has taken it  
 from Red Hat.
The other differences from the official build is some more inclusion of  
system libraries as well as the "prefix"-thing.

-- 
/Jonas

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/