> This leads me to wonder: do projects need explicit permission to use > Mozilla's branding when distributing modified versions? For instance, I > understand the OpenBSD ports@ mailing list applies significant patches > to Firefox to support pledge() and unveil(), yet retains the official > branding.
As you can check yourself, www/mozilla-firefox doesn't contain a lot of patches. In particular, pledge and unveil support is upstreamed (the port carries the pledge.* and unveil.* files). The patches that we carry are almost exclusively build fixes for problems that haven't yet made it into the stable releases, plus some WIP patches. The same goes for the other mozilla ports. There are a hanful of config knobs that are changed in files/all-openbsd.js > Given OpenBSD's strong commitment to respecting licenses, I'm > curious- does the project have permission from Mozilla to use the > Firefox branding in this context? OpenBSD i386 and amd64 are official tier-3 platforms: https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/contributing/build/supported.html Landry (the maintainer) is a Mozilla developer and works very closely with upstream (who are much more helpful than the above link seems to indicate). Also he doesn't want to carry patches at all. If you want to modify firefox, there needs to be an upstream ticket and patches in flight. So while this doesn't answer your exact questions, I think OpenBSD is fine with its use of firefox and upstream is prefectly aware of it.
