Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
MJ Ray wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoud@engelfriet.net> wrote:
> > [...] 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?
That's a good question. If "Firefox" has the same generic meaning
as "coke", i.e. the general type of product instead of a specific
product, then there's no problem.
> > 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).
I guess then I don't understand why. What I saw was a package
called 'firefox' that Depends: on Iceweasel. So that means
if I type "apt-get install firefox", apt-get will see the
dependency and install Iceweasel. That's where I got worried.
> 1. That firefox transition package is not a web browser, so is the mark
> relevant or confusing?
It's not that the transition package is called 'firefox'.
It's the fact that the package Depends: on Iceweasel and
so the act of running "apt-get install firefox" results in
Iceweasel being installed and not the Firefox browser.
> 2. No trade takes place with apt-get, so are any trademarks relevant?
Good point. It's always about context. I would say that
commercial vendors of Debian (-based) software are trading
among other things this package. They could be held liable for
a false designation of origin or false label (15 USC 1125).
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: