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

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Don Armstrong (don@debian.org) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> > >  While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need to
> > >  look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take
> > >  any package in main, modify it, and further redistribute it? If
> > >  yes, then the package can remain in main, and is free; if not,
> > >  then the package is not free.
> > 
> > Our users have permission to modify it and further redistribute it
> > *as long as they change the name*. That's a limitation we're willing
> > to accept for ourselves - why should it not be free enough for our
> > users?
> Unfortunatly, in the case of Firefox, we have to do much more than
> just change the name of the work/binary, which is really what DFSG §4
> is getting at.[1]
> All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner consistent
> with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from the work, which
> is quite a bit different than merely chaging the name of the work.

What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages
don't use any of the trademarked images and logos? 
> 1: As I'm sure you're aware, it's primarily a nod to TeX et al. and a
> compromise so TeX could be distributed.
> 2: Extra bonus points to whoever figures out what this actually means.
> No credit if you consider less than 3 jurisdictions.

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

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+ 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: