<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/5/2019 5:26 AM, Mark Banner wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4c516e5c-3f40-24bf-cf58-be138870382e@mozilla.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/05/2019 19:52, Eric Moore
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5fd13459-28c3-89d2-de40-084ae5434bbc@fastmail.fm">This
raises a related question. Many Linux distro's have their own
build of Thunderbird. While they have some modifications I don't
consider them a port. They're just a distro specific build, and
something you can expect to get support from at SUMO and
MozilaZine despite not being released by Mozilla. What
determines whether an email application can legally call itself
Thunderbird? <br>
</blockquote>
<p>I would suggest that the council discusses this with the
Mozilla legal team.</p>
<p>There are various guidelines for the use of <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/">Mozilla's
trademarks</a>, and there's also guidelines for the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/">distribution
of Firefox</a>. It is slightly unclear, but looking at the
Firefox rules and if it was myself doing the port, I'd probably
ask for written permission or at least double-check it wasn't
necessary.</p>
<p>Hence, I think this should at least be checked/discussed with
legal as part of standard trademark checking.<br>
</p>
<p>Mark</p>
</blockquote>
Indeed, the council has been discussing this, and has reached out to
the author of the port.<br>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>