* Wouter Verhelst (wouter@debian.org) wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Wouter Verhelst (wouter@debian.org) wrote: > > > Where possible, sure. But "principles" doesn't mean "the rules should be > > > exactly the same". > > > > Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the rules > > should necessarily be the same. But I am of the opinion that the > > spirit of DFSG #8 should apply. > > To trademarks? Why? I don't see why that would be necessary, or even a > good idea; but I'm sure I can be convinced given good arguments. It's a question of fairness, which I think is embodied by DFSG #8. We're getting this offer from MoFo because, I think, we are Debian. We're big and we're cool, there's no denying it :) But other entities, equally deserving of the trademark usage from a quality standpoint won't get it because MoFo doesn't care about them. That isn't fair, and I don't think Debian should play if rules aren't known or aren't applied fairly. It's hubris to think we're more deserving than others. > [...] > > > We will distribute things that have a copyright licence which is > > > actively enforced. All of the GNU stuff, for example. > > > > Come on, we distribute things with actively enforced copyrights that > > have DFSG licenses, not just anything. > > I didn't say that. Please stop putting words in my mouth ;-P > > What I meant was, "there exists software whose copyright is being > actively envorced that we distribute". > > > > The two are, again, completely different beasts. The same is true for > > > trademark licenses, and I don't see why a requirement to rename it > > > unless given permission (which, as it happens, Debian has gotten) is > > > wrong. > > > > If we accept it, we've made a Debian-specific deal to distribute that > > software. Is that acceptable? I don't believe it is. > > Why not? I've seen you say that quite a few times in this thread, but I > really don't see what your problem is, sorry. Could you try to explain? I've explained above. > > > DFSG#8 _cannot_ be applied to trademarks. Due to the nature of trademark > > > law, the Mozilla Foundation _cannot_ give a blanket permission to call > > > firefox anything deriving even a slight bit of code from the Debian > > > packages; if they did that, they would lose their trademark. It's as > > > simple as that. > > > > Sure it can. Mozilla could have a trademark policy that says "If your > > build of Firefox meets conditions X, Y, Z, you can use our > > trademark". Anyone is free to meet those conditions. > > Such a policy would require quite a lot of work, and carries with it far > greater risks for the licensor. > > If you create a copyright license that requires you to meet condition X, > Y, and Z before people are allowed to use it, and someone finds a > loophole in your license that would allow them to use the software while > following the letter, but not the spirit of the license, then the worst > that can happen to you is that people are allowed to use that version of > your program in ways you did not intend them to. For the next version, > however, you can change the license, closing the loophole, and all is > well again. That's a problem, but there is a fix. > > With a trademark policy like that, if people find a loophole in your > trademark policy, they might suddenly be allowed to use the trademark > for things you did not intend them to, and you might have lost the > rights to your trademark. > > This is a serious problem, and there would appear to be no fix. > > In that light, I don't think it's unreasonable for trademark owners to > make the rules governing their trademark be stricter than the rules > governing their code. IANAL, however. IANAL either, but why wouldn't the change in trademark policy apply retroactively to the current users of the trademark? > Note also that Debian is not about Free Trademarks, it is about Free > Software. There's a difference. > > > Other projects do this with their trademarks. > > Do you have examples? I've gotten lost in the snipping. What examples are you looking for? > > But the mozilla > > I think you left an end unfinished here... I'm not sure what I was trying to finish there, probably best ignored. -- 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