* Dale C. Scheetz (dwarf@polaris.net) wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:16:18 -0400 > Eric Dorland <eric@debian.org> wrote: > > > * Marco d'Itri (md@Linux.IT) wrote: > > > On Jun 15, Eric Dorland <eric@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the > > > > > priorities of our users and free software... > > > > And where do we strike that balance in this case? I think gaining > > > > more freedom for our users is the best thing in the long run. > > > > Sure, there will be shorter term pain, but we need to take the > > > > long view. > > > I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal > > > trademarks. If a trademark license allows us to ship the software > > > the way we want and there are no practical problems in removing > > > trademark references if it were ever needed then I think it's > > > obvious that we would do a disservice to our users by removing from > > > Debian such a widely know trademark without a good reason. > > > > Well the whole issue is I don't believe we're allowed to ship the > > software the way we want. We would be compromising our principles by > > doing so. > > > > > There are good reasons for a trademark license to be restrictive and > > > I believe that the MF made a good case about their one, so I do not > > > think that it's important for users to have the permission to use it > > > however they want. The code is still free no matter how it is > > > branded so this is not an issue of software freedom, at best this is > > > a marketing issue. > > > > I never asked them to give users permission to use it however they > > want. But their current permissions are too restrictive. > > > > >From the discussions on this thread, it is your last statement that has > not been accepted by everyone here, myself included ;-) > > 1. If the tradmark restrictions, combined with the license, require that > we not use the term Firefox in identifying their product of that name, > then we do that, even though we all agree it is stupid. Those who can't > find the product in Debian will find it at the Mozilla site (I have some > Debian machines that are running Firefox in this fashion) > > 2. Examine the purpose of a trademark in the first place. The intent is > for the specific name to be identified with the specific product. The > fact that Debian uses the Mozilla and Firefox trademarks to properly > identify the products delivered tells me that we are using their > trademarks correctly. If one of our end user's took the Mozilla packages > and reworked them to be the desktop, with links into every other piece > of software in the system, and then tried to distribute this product > under the Mozilla/Firefox trademarks that would represent a gross > violation of their trademark. (for which Debian would have no > reaponsibility BTW) As a counter example, one of the Knoppix based "live > CD" distributions (Either Morphix or Byzantine, I can't remember which) > has the desktop actually be the browser. But, of course, they don't > call it mozilla or firefox, or use any of the trademarks, so they have > followed the rules as well. You're skipping the crucial point here. Under the publicly available licenses/policies, we *cannot* call it Firefox. The MoFo is offering us an agreement that allows us to use the mark. I think agreeing to this is against the spirit of DFSG #8, and sets a bad precedent (speaking of precedents, have we ever made such an agreement before to use a trademark?). > I guess, from what I've said above, I believe that the current state of > affairs in Debian is consistant with the letter of the licensing of that > software, and consistant with the spirit of their tradmark usage > document. > > Changing the names of these packages to contain neither the substring > "mozilla" nor the substring "firefox" would, in fact, hurt both Debian > and Mozilla, not to mention what it does to the maintainer's morale. -- 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