Future versions of Firefox on Windows 98

[puntoMX]

There is a legal issue with releasing an unofficial build branded as Firefox. Tihiy did no such thing. He links to the official builds.

To be very short: we´ve "talked" about it before. MSFN has to take more actions about against violating EULAs.

[BenoitRen]

EULA? Which EULA? This isn't a Microsoft product.

Firefox is open-source, for crying out loud! But they do have a trademark. Here is the trademark policy: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html

[puntoMX]

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/

[rainyd]

To be very short: we´ve "talked" about it before. MSFN has to take more actions about against violating EULAs.

Maybe instead of talking about violating EULA/s it would be easier to send email to MoCo with the question?

Edited April 16, 2008 by rainyd

[BenoitRen]

That's what I get for using SeaMonkey and not Firefox, I guess.

Anyway. The EULA (of which you'd better use version 2) does not prohibit anyone from distributing an unmodified official Firefox. Tihiy posted a wrapper for Firefox 3 Beta 5. A wrapper does not modify Firefox.

[Analada]

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/

It would be nice to hear some positive suggestions from you as to:

(1) How you think this project can be continued

(2) That you intend to invite Tihiy back ASAP.

Leaving aside my personal distaste as to how this matter has been handled, I really do think that by your actions you have probably killed the project off, at least as far as this forum. (I hope i am proven wrong).

Tihiy, if you're reading this and want some funds to continue this project, e.g. to set up a website, elsewhere, and use that instead of this Orwellian-controlled forum, just let me know. Hopefully some others will contribute also. Hey! All that's needed is a suitable webpage or two. Google et al will soon identify it to the 98SE punters out there!

[rainyd]

This isn't a Microsoft product.

You've forgotten that we are on the Microsoft software forum and that explains a lot!

[cluberti]

The moderation staff are speaking about this in a general review of the board contents. We apologize this particular project was put "on hold" temporarily, but it wasn't the first and will not be the last. I am fairly confident this will be resolved today or tomorrow and then more will be known, but do not take out your anger on PuntoMX. This is something we should have done long ago but didn't have the manpower to do until recently, so we are currently reviewing all forum projects to make sure we aren't violating the legal rights of copyright, IP, and patent holders. The Mozilla foundation and Firefox project authors did not code Firefox B3 for Win9x OSes, and the EULA / License for the beta was a gray area on whether or not this is allowed (other projects, like Debian, have run into similar issues).

This is being dealt with. Please PM me if you have other questions, let's take this offline for now.

[idisjunction]

The Mozilla foundation and Firefox project authors did not code Firefox B3 for Win9x OSes, and the EULA / License for the beta was a gray area on whether or not this is allowed (other projects, like Debian, have run into similar issues).

No they didn't. The "problem" with Debian was not including Firefox or running it on their system, but Debian's stringent (some would say draconian) requirements about software being free. The name "Firefox" cannot be used if the source code is modified significantly; Swiftfox is an example of this. Hence, Iceweasel, Debian's version, was simply compiled with different graphics and name. Debian's version isn't even really modifed; they just didn't like the idea that you couldn't

See the pages on trademarks and community edition branding.

[puntoMX]

The name "Firefox" cannot be used if the source code is modified significantly...

Also counts when one bit is changed. It doesn´t matter how much it´s changed to say...

[Analada]

The name "Firefox" cannot be used if the source code is modified significantly...

Also counts when one bit is changed. It doesn´t matter how much it´s changed to say...

There is absolutely no alteration, not even one bit, to the source code. It's just a wrapper, that's all.

AFAICT not one person of official standing on the Firefox support group thinks there's anything even remotely not legal about this. Also they tell me it's been done before (a wrapper I mean) in a non-win98Se context, and that was perfectly legal it seems. HTH

[Tarun]

Considering that Cairo 1.9 does not work on Windows 9x/Me because of certain API, the patch that enables compatibility on 9x/Me is considered a significant change.

[RetroOS]

Considering that Cairo 1.9 does not work on Windows 9x/Me because of certain API, the patch that enables compatibility on 9x/Me is considered a significant change.

If it was a patch that modified the binaries then yes, but AFAIK, it is purely a wrapper and does not in any way modify a single bit in the official binaries.

Correct me if I'm wrong?

It is really running like a VM for Firefox - perfectly allowable.

No software vendor complains if someone runs their software in a VM like WINE, VMWare, Virtual PC, DOS Box, and others.

Afterall, Windows itself runs every app in a VM!

Thoughts to ponder...

[erpdude8]

Firefox 3.0 Release Candidate 1 now available:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-rc.html

getting real close to the final product.

[erpdude8]

Firefox 3.0 Release Candidate 2 now available:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-rc.html

getting warmer...

Edited June 5, 2008 by erpdude8