Bug 234020 - www/firefox: Do we have prior written permission to patch and use official branding?
Summary: www/firefox: Do we have prior written permission to patch and use official br...
Status: Closed Works As Intended
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: freebsd-gecko (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2018-12-14 19:42 UTC by Conrad Meyer
Modified: 2018-12-15 03:09 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
bugzilla: maintainer-feedback? (gecko)


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Conrad Meyer freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2018-12-14 19:42:09 UTC
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/

> You may distribute unaltered copies of Mozilla Firefox from Mozilla.org without express permission from Mozilla as long as you comply with the following rules:

...

> * You may not add to, remove, or change any part of Firefox, ...

...

> The open source nature of Firefox allows you to freely download and modify the Firefox source code. However, if you make any changes to Firefox, you may not redistribute that product using any Mozilla trademark without Mozilla’s prior written consent and, typically, a distribution agreement with Mozilla. For example, you may not distribute a modified form of Firefox and continue to call it Firefox.

> Changes requiring Mozilla’s prior written permission include (but are not limited to):

> * Adding, modifying, or deleting source files,

...

> If you wish to distribute a modified version of Firefox with Mozilla trademarks please contact us with your request at trademark-permissions@mozilla.com.

Notably, we carry 7 patches in www/firefox/files, modifying:

 browser/app/nsBrowserApp.cpp                            |    3 ++
 browser/app/profile/firefox.js                          |    8 +++---
 build/moz.configure/init.configure                      |   12 ++++++++-
 build/moz.configure/keyfiles.configure                  |    3 +-
 build/moz.configure/util.configure                      |    9 ------
 config/system-headers.mozbuild                          |   13 +++++++++
 dom/base/moz.build                                      |    3 ++
 dom/media/flac/FlacDecoder.cpp                          |    5 +++
 gfx/graphite2/moz-gr-update.sh                          |    7 ++++-
 gfx/harfbuzz/README-mozilla                             |    5 +++
 gfx/moz.build                                           |    8 ++++--
 gfx/skia/generate_mozbuild.py                           |    3 ++
 gfx/skia/moz.build                                      |    3 ++
 gfx/thebes/moz.build                                    |    8 +++++-
 intl/unicharutil/util/moz.build                         |    3 ++
 netwerk/dns/moz.build                                   |    3 ++
 old-configure.in                                        |   21 ++++++++++++++++
 toolkit/library/moz.build                               |    6 ++++
 toolkit/moz.configure                                   |   20 +++++++++++++++
 toolkit/mozapps/extensions/internal/AddonRepository.jsm |    2 -
 toolkit/mozapps/extensions/internal/XPIDatabase.jsm     |    2 -
 21 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

None of the patches seem to carry any documentation of approval from Mozilla.  Some are changes (?)misreport the OS as "Linux."
Comment 1 Jan Beich freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2018-12-14 21:58:05 UTC
Probably[1] but Mozilla themselves don't provide FreeBSD binaries. Many port patches are due to lack of manpower to clean up the cruft and upstream the rest. Port defaults tend to lag behind e.g., no Mozilla API key, no telemetry yet[2] and no crash reporting.

Is this not acceptable?

[1] https://people.freebsd.org/~ahze/firefox_thunderbird-approved.txt
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1352981#c4
Comment 2 Conrad Meyer freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2018-12-15 03:09:20 UTC
(In reply to Jan Beich from comment #1)
> Probably[1]

The first document looks promising, but it's unclear what the context was ("your builds are configured so closely to ours") at the time (and it's unclear what the time was).  (The file has a 2004 timestamp on it, which seems improbable — that was shortly after the name changed from Firebird.)

I guess the written permission in that document is pretty broad, so maybe we're still fine.  I guess I would feel more comfortable if I knew how our patchset today compares with the one from whenever the permission was granted, but, what the hell.  It answers my question/concern.

> Mozilla themselves don't provide FreeBSD binaries. Many port patches are
> due to lack of manpower to clean up the cruft and upstream the rest.

None of this is relevant to Mozilla's exercise of their trademark rights.