* Wouter Verhelst (wouter@debian.org) wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:10:06AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Wouter Verhelst (wouter@debian.org) wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > > Come on, that can't possibly be the intention. I could craft a license > > > > that says "you have all the rights of the BSD license, as long as your > > > > code is exactly the same as it is in Debian". That would be > > > > insane. > > > > > > Yes, but it's not relevant to the case at hand. > > > > Why is it irrelevant? > > Because your example is about code, while the other example is about a > name. Not allowing people to use modified code is clearly non-free; not > allowing people to use the same name is not. I never said it was non-free. The question is still whether we can accept the use of the name or not. > > > In the firefox case, people say "You have all the rights of the license; > > > and as long as it's in Debian or it's not modified, you may call it > > > firefox". > > > > Exactly. How is that permissible under DFSG #8. > > The DFSG does not apply to trademark licenses, only to software > (copyright) licenses. So where are the guidelines for trademarks? Oh wait they're aren't any. That doesn't mean that "anything goes" with respect to trademarks. > [...] > > > The DFSG talks about software licenses. It does not talk about patents > > > (which is a problem), and it does not talk about trademarks either > > > (which I don't think is a problem, but I don't know whether other people > > > feel the same way). A trademark license simply /is not an issue/ with > > > regards to Free Software; whether you're allowed to use a trademark or > > > not has no impact on whether or not you're allowed to modify, study, or > > > redistribute the software. As such, it cannot make the license non-free. > > > > Just because the DFSG was developed only within the context of > > software licenses, it doesn't mean their principles don't apply to > > other things. > > Where possible, sure. But "principles" doesn't mean "the rules should be > exactly the same". Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the rules should necessarily be the same. But I am of the opinion that the spirit of DFSG #8 should apply. > > Let's construct an analogy using patents. Company X > > releases foowhizbang under a BSD license. But contained within > > foowhizbang is their patented algorithm, which they're actively > > enforcing against anyone who distributes their own complied > > binaries. Except they've granted the Debian project an > > exception. Would we distribute this software? Even though we're not > > discussing a software license, I think the principles behind the DFSG > > would mean we would not distribute this software. I hope the parallels > > I'm drawing are clear. > > We will not distribute anything that is encumbered with an actively > enforced patent, period. Whether we have an exception or not isn't even > relevant. That's not true. If the patent was actively enforced, but a blanket exception was given to OSS implementations, we would distribute it. > We will distribute things that have a copyright licence which is > actively enforced. All of the GNU stuff, for example. Come on, we distribute things with actively enforced copyrights that have DFSG licenses, not just anything. > The two are, again, completely different beasts. The same is true for > trademark licenses, and I don't see why a requirement to rename it > unless given permission (which, as it happens, Debian has gotten) is > wrong. If we accept it, we've made a Debian-specific deal to distribute that software. Is that acceptable? I don't believe it is. > > Now, I haven't claimed Firefox's trademark makes it non-free. My > > question is whether I can use the trademark in Debian. If I look at > > the Mozilla Trademark Policy, I cannot. Now MoFo has agreed to extend > > us permission to use the mark. I don't think we should accept that > > permission. We shouldn't be making deals purely in our own self > > interest. > > We're not doing that. Yes, we are. We're making a deal to distribute software with a certain name that only benefits Debian. > DFSG#8 _cannot_ be applied to trademarks. Due to the nature of trademark > law, the Mozilla Foundation _cannot_ give a blanket permission to call > firefox anything deriving even a slight bit of code from the Debian > packages; if they did that, they would lose their trademark. It's as > simple as that. Sure it can. Mozilla could have a trademark policy that says "If your build of Firefox meets conditions X, Y, Z, you can use our trademark". Anyone is free to meet those conditions. Other projects do this with their trademarks. But the mozilla > DFSG#8 applies to copyright law, where such a rule does make sense and > is possible. It does not apply to trademark law, which is completely > different. > -- Eric Dorland <eric.dorland@mail.mcgill.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature