Quoting zap (calmstorm@???):
>
> On 09/23/2017 10:35 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting zap (calmstorm@???):
> >
> >> Also, palemoon has restrictions on its software which waterfox does not.
> >> I believe its on its binaries or executables? I think?
> > I've just looked and found no evidence of this.
> >
> https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml
>
> the above is my example... of this

Ah, thank you.

That essentially amounts to a trademark licence, similar to what
Mozilla, Inc. have done in the past (possibly still, not sure) concerning
trademark-encumbered logos, images, and other indicia of brand identity.
People not wanting to deal with that need only compile their own
binaries without Palemoon Productions branding.

As is always the case in such matters, they drastically overstate what
powers are available to them under trademark law. A lot of this is done
by implication, e.g., where they say you have 'obtain no _rights to_ the
Pale Moon name or logo' (emphasis added) with your MPL copyright
licence. That is true, but misleading: Many uses of other people's
trademarked styles, images, logos, etc. don't _require_ permission,
but are open to anyone.

If interested in this area of law, see: 'Trademark Law' on
http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/

(I was one of the editors of _Linux Gazette_ magazine when SSC, Inc.,
then publishers of _Linux Journal_, attempted to push us around using
trademark-based threats. We called their bluff. We won.)