What constitutes redistribution of Pale Moon

[drjohnnyfever]

The Pale Moon devs have made the claim that an OpenBSD work-in-progress port is a redistribution of Pale Moon (in violation of licensing due to branding).

The port simplifies allowing an end-user to download palemoon-27.7.2.tar.gz from https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon and build it for their system.

My supposition is that this literally *can't* be a "distribution" or "redistribution" of the software. If this were a redistribution of Pale Moon it would mean that I, by emailing a link to the source code hosted by an official MoonchildProductions github account, would be redistributing Pale Moon (potentially in violation of the license) even if I had never seen or been in possession of any copy-written material.

If the project can articulate to me exactly what they consider redistribution in source or binary form and to what extend redistribution terms apply to end-users I'd be much obliged.

[lyceus]

Hello!

The source code of Pale Moon is open source and you can compile it for your personal usage. If you want to compile for distribute in a platform, then you need to:

* Change the name "Pale Moon" to another name branding in all the code, as the name is copyrighted to Moonchdild Productions.
* Change the icons, images and any other art inside the code as these are also copyrighted to Moonchdild Productions.
* Make sure that your build is not for sold in any distribution medium.

If you need some idea of how a fork of Pale Moon should like without all the copyrighted items, you can try to download and see the look of the Pale Moon fork for Windows XP named "My Pal": https://feodor2.github.io/Mypal/

Greetings,
Lyceus

[Nigaikaze]

If the project can articulate to me exactly what they consider redistribution in source or binary form and to what extend redistribution terms apply to end-users I'd be much obliged.

Perhaps this will help:
http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml

[drjohnnyfever]

So it is the position of the Pale Moon project that a Port configuration constitutes redistribution of the software subject to redistribution license terms even if the end user installing said Port downloads the unmodified source directly from the official server and modifies the source locally at build/install time?

That seems kind of unreasonable to me. Like I said before that would mean the licensing restrictions would extend to those not using or in possession of the software.