On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Andrew Suffield (asuffield@debian.org) wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: > > > Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit : > > > > > You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the > > > > > stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use > > > > > trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. > > > > > > > > That would be the part where the trademark holder tells you that you > > > > can't distribute modified versions. > > > > > > The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they > > > are ready to give us this right because they trust us). > > > > After they first told us that we couldn't distribute modified > > versions, that was one of several outcomes of debian-legal's > > investigation into this matter, yes. There were several others, too. > > Sorry Andrew, which investigation are you referring to? Which other > outcomes? You've got some context there I'm not getting. There have been multiple threads on debian-legal over the past couple of years on this issue, exploring it exhaustively (I don't believe *this* thread contains anything new or significant). The important ones are probably these: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00006.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00023.html But I'm just fishing from memory, I expect I missed some. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature