Bart Decrem marketing-public at mozilla.org
Fri, 24 Oct 2003 22:28:14 -0700

The current thinking on this is that, yes, we would simply work with Red 
Hat and give them a license to use our marks.  The policy doesn't say 
you can't use our marks if you don't ship the latest version - it says 
that we need to give you permission if you don't ship the latest version.


James Graham wrote:

> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> marketing-public mailing list
> marketing-public@mozilla.org
> http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/marketing-public