Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> > While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need to
> > look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take
> > any package in main, modify it, and further redistribute it? If
> > yes, then the package can remain in main, and is free; if not,
> > then the package is not free.
>
> Our users have permission to modify it and further redistribute it
> *as long as they change the name*. That's a limitation we're willing
> to accept for ourselves - why should it not be free enough for our
> users?
Unfortunatly, in the case of Firefox, we have to do much more than
just change the name of the work/binary, which is really what DFSG §4
is getting at.[1]
All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner consistent
with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from the work, which
is quite a bit different than merely chaging the name of the work.
Don Armstrong
1: As I'm sure you're aware, it's primarily a nod to TeX et al. and a
compromise so TeX could be distributed.
2: Extra bonus points to whoever figures out what this actually means.
No credit if you consider less than 3 jurisdictions.
--
She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: