On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:26:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes: > > > We consider the former to be DFSG-free and the latter to be non-free > > (and require explicit permission to do the latter from the copyright > > holder). That's all there is to it. I can't imagine why Mozilla would > > want to forbid this, other than a total lack of comprehension of the > > difference between trademarks and copyrights. > > I can -- they're currently very concerned about unstable or poorly > modified code being shipped as "Firefox" or "Mozilla" branded > software. > > Debian *will* modify the Mozilla or Firefox products slightly to ship > them -- introducing better FHS compliance, for example, and probably > a few other things: Different bookmarks, different home page, maybe > different text in some places and maybe different code. These may > impact the stability or user experience of the product, so they're > concerned about us using their protected marks. > > As a consequence of the above, even if we did have a copyright license > to modify the icon or the bitmap of the text "Firefox", we wouldn't > have a trademark license to use the word 'Firefox' to describe our > modified product. Did you even read what I wrote? Why does it help to prohibit me from taking the firefox logo, replacing the fox part with a cow, and using it as the logo for something else entirely? How could this possibly be relevant? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature