367321 - Swiftfox has licence issues: eg, licence claims that not all source code modifications are being released

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(mozilla.org :: Licensing, task)

Description

[Constantine Evans]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061201 Firefox/2.0.0.1 (Ubuntu-feisty)
Build Identifier: 

The licence for Swiftfox (http://getswiftfox.com/LICENSE), a Firefox derivative, states that source code modifications relating to Swiftfox branding are not being released along with the rest of the source code. This seems to be a rather obvious violation of section 3.2 of the MPL.

There are also other concerns I have with the licence compliance: for example, the modifications are distributed as patches, which do not contain any of the usual notices, the changelog is not included with the source and doesn't usually contain dates of changes (3.3), and the logo is similar to that of Firefox.

In fact, I'm not able to get the source code modifications at all with my normal system, as it appears that the author blocked my access to the site and removed my question from the forum when I inquired about the source and licence issues.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1

[timeless]

mpl doesn't require *new* files with some other license to be covered by mpl.

the official firefox branding files are new files covered by some other license.

if the files he's talking about that fall into a similar situation, he's right.

if he actually modified an mpl file, that's a different story.

note that most branding files end up in the download unmodified which makes an concerns about not seeing the content fairly pointless....

Comment 2

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

> The licence for Swiftfox (http://getswiftfox.com/LICENSE), a Firefox
> derivative, states that source code modifications relating to Swiftfox 
> branding
> are not being released along with the rest of the source code.

It depends. It may just be a badly-worded reference to "patches" which apply the Swiftfox logo. If there are patches which change existing files to replace the words "Firefox" with "Swiftfox" then yes, technically, these should be released. However, no-one else would be allowed to use them and distribute the result without permission of the trademark holder.

> the modifications are distributed as patches, 

This is allowed.

> which do not contain any of the usual notices,

This might be technically a problem but, given that they apply to files which do have the notices, it's hardly worth worrying about. I don't think there's any dispute that the modifications are made available under the tri-licence.

> the changelog is not included with the source and doesn't
> usually contain dates of changes (3.3)

The patch itself is a documentation of the changes made - in fact, the most clear and unambiguous documentation possible. Indeed, dates are not given (apart from the date on the diff file itself, which could be said to be the date all the changes were "made", in that that was the date they were published). Either way, even if technically it's wrong, I'm certainly not bothered about this.

> and the logo is similar to that of Firefox.

I believe The Mozilla Foundation has looked into this and concluded the logo is fine. If it's not, I'm sure someone will be in touch with Swiftfox.

> In fact, I'm not able to get the source code modifications at all with my
> normal system, as it appears that the author blocked my access to the site and
> removed my question from the forum when I inquired about the source and 
> licence issues.

If you have downloaded the binary, then disallowing your access to the source is a violation of section 3.2. If you can confirm this (e.g. you can't access it but your friend down the road can at the same time) then let me know.

Gerv

Comment 3

[Jim]

I think the problem some people have is that its not possible to build a fully functional branded Swiftfox for their own private use. This is possible with Firefox as all the branding is available. Not so with Swiftfox. The graphics are not available, neither are the changes to files for said branding.
There are lots of reasons why someone may want to build Swiftfox without distributing it. Even to learn where the branding that must be changed is. But as of now its not possible. The builder of swiftfox also has a bad history of banning and blocking people from access to his site, the source, and changes, if they ask him about the source or the license it is under.

Comment 4

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> I think the problem some people have is that its not possible to build a fully
> functional branded Swiftfox for their own private use.

It's not possible to build a fully-functional branded Netscape for your own private use either. That doesn't mean they are in violation of the licence.

> The builder of swiftfox also has a bad history of
> banning and blocking people from access to his site, the source, and changes,
> if they ask him about the source or the license it is under.

Again, none of these things are necessarily licence violation issues.

If someone has clear evidence that the owner of Swiftfox is violating a specific section of the MPL, they should open a new bug with the information (including the bit of the MPL supposedly violated, and an explanation of why they think it's a violation.)

Gerv

Comment 5

[Jim]

Thanks for the answer Gerv. Your answers should give people who prefer open source and free software all the more reason to move on to a free open project. One without a developer that has problems like those found at Swiftfox.
It also shows me why I personally would never use the MPL for any project I would  create or work on. The freedom to build and use an application kind of is a must have thing for me. Its one of the founding principles of FOSS imho.

Comment 6

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Jim: presumably you would also never use the BSD, MIT, Apache, X or LGPL licences, for the same reason? All of those permit proprietary or semi-proprietary derivatives.

Gerv

Comment 7

[Jim]

If it stops someone from building the application because some files can be left out. Then yes. After all what good is free code if you cant build the application?  I'm not even concerned with distributing the binary, that you cant do because of trademarks. But the person who receives the code should imho be able to compile it and make the application for their own private use. Otherwise you leave open a door to leave other things out. Things like build configuration files or changes to them which are no place to be found for Swiftfox but changes are listed in its build:config.