[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On 15/06/2005 Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > It's a Debian derivative which was called 'TrustedDebian' at first.
> >
> > I 'vaguely' recall something about the DPL requesting they change their
> > name...
> >
> > How is this different?
> The name "TrustedSomething" implies that the Something in question
> isn't secure. That's what got told to them, and they were asked to
> change their name. It's all in the -project archives.
> Very different from the Mozilla situation.

all we can discuss are principles, not particular situations. if we
decide how to behave in every particular situation, we will have very
inconsistent licences, copyrights, whatsoever in the archive.

the problem is whether the situation is acceptable under the terms of
the DFSG, not whether some particualar debian developer X has objections
against it.

nevertheless there in no obvious solution. on the one hand we allow
licenses to restrict the use of a name, see DFSG#4, on the other hand we
say that licenses may not be specific to debian. DFSG#8 says, that the
license which applies to the debian package has to be the same as for
users and redistributors.

i guess, the only way to not compromise one of the two DFSG paragraphs
is to rename firefox packages.
i really don't like that idea, and maybe the MoFo can be convinced to
change their license.

maybe section 4 and 8 of the DFSG are predestinated to cause conflicts.
we could add an exception to section 8, that trademark or logo licenses
for debian and users/redistributors may differ [and that we have to
support easy package-rename build support].

that would support the already mentioned proposal to keep firefox
thunderbird and so on in the archive as they are. On the other hand we
still would provide free, modifiable and redistribuatable software to
the community, as we would add some easy rename support at build time
(dpatch, optional flag in debian/rules, whatever) to the packages.

this would serve both, users and the community.


Reply to: