James Graham marketing-public at mozilla.org
Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:51:59 +0100

Bart Decrem wrote:

> Here's how this affects mozillaoncd.com:
> - If they were shipping Mozilla 1.5 unmodified, they could call their 
> product Mozilla 1.5.  They could not call it "Moz 1.5".  If they 
> modify the product, they have to come up with a new name for it but 
> could say something like "based on Mozilla" or "includes Mozilla 
> technologies".  As it turns out, they're not shipping Mozilla 1.5, but 
> let's give them a few days to update their site and software.  If they 
> continue to ship Mozilla 1.4, then they wouldn't be able to use any of 
> our marks to refer to that software; 

Would shipping 1.4.1 (or the latest version of any designated 'stable' 
branch) be considered OK? This might be important for people looking to 
sell Mozilla to companies where the three-monthly cycle of mozilla point 
releases would be considered far too rapid an upgrade cycle. 
Additionally, how would this clause of the trademark policy interact 
with other clauses? For example distributers such as Redhat would have 
to ask for permission to ship Mozilla under the Mozilla name, since they 
make some modifcations (recompile the software, change bookmarks and 
start page and so on). However, for any particular release of Redhat 
Linux, the version of Mozilla provided would be different to the latest 
current version of Mozilla, or at least become so during the Redhat 
prouct cycle. For example Redhat 9 comes with Mozilla 1.2.1 and will 
presumably continue to do so until Redhat 10 is released which, I 
expect, will use the latest 1.4 branch release. Clearly preventing 
Redhat from using the Mozilla name would be A Bad Idea, but a simple 
reading of the trademark policy sugsets that they would not be given 
permission. Presumably, in reality, this clause is negotiable and the 
foundation will actually be flexible in the requirement that the very 
latest version is shipped?