licensing
Does Amazon Need to provide source for Silk?
<p>I was looking at the traffic on my website, and saw some of that from the Amazon silk browser, which shows up as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 5.0; SM-G900R4 Build/LRX21T)
  AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/47.0.2526.83 Mobile
  Safari/537.36</p>
</blockquote>

<p>aside from clearly having some sort of identity crisis, the silk browser claims to be a Mozilla product. </p>

<p>The Mozilla license states that source code must be made available.<br>
<a href="https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-%28mpl-2%29" rel="nofollow">https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-%28mpl-2%29</a></p>

<p>So I went to the Amazon silk site, and some Amazon sites, but I see no links, or references to download the source. So either Amazon is violating the license by not providing source code, or masquerading as an alternate browser, which (as I understand it) is illegal, under the terms of hacking, and e-crime. </p>

<p>Beyond that, I see no way to contact Amazon about this. What should someone do?  </p>

<p>The version field of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent" rel="nofollow">HTTP 'user-agent'</a> header is used to communicate compatibility level, not the provenance of the source code. Almost every browser around claims compatibility with Mozilla. In fact <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Silk" rel="nofollow">Silk</a> is based on the BSD licensed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)" rel="nofollow">Chromium</a> browser, which doesn't impose a requirement on source distribution.</p>


