Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoud@engelfriet.net> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> would carry the name firefox. There's no such thing as a firefox. [...]
Others have explained that the package doesn't do that and that there is
such a thing as a firefox.
> [...] When a user does "apt-get install firefox"
> he is not saying "I want to install a firefox", but "I want to install
> the browser with the name Firefox".
Or are they saying "I want to install a web browser" in a similar to those
people who order a coke when they are saying they want a cola?
(Jumping threads: it's very rare that I get questioned about Pepsi if I
forgetfully order a coke. I think mainly Wetherspoon pubs do that now.)
> It is true that a purely functional indication cannot be affected by a
> trademark. So if something cannot function without having part of it
> named ``firefox'', then that would not be trademark infringement.
The firefox transition package cannot function fully without its
Package control field being labelled firefox and a /usr/bin/firefox
(IMO having that in iceweasel may be a bug in a couple of ways).
> But
> from what I have seen so far, the only reason the package is called
> ``firefox'' is because people know Firefox better than Iceweasel. In
> that case the name is used in the trademark sense.
Two of my questions remain, as far as I can see:
1. That firefox transition package is not a web browser, so is the mark
relevant or confusing?
2. No trade takes place with apt-get, so are any trademarks relevant?
I can understand why one cannot sell as Firefox a thing containing the
firefox transition package and iceweasel, but that seems similar to
some other name-change and individual-selling restrictions.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: