* Simon Huggins (huggie@earth.li) wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Simon Huggins (huggie@earth.li) wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > > Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you > > > > don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozilla foundation is > > > > against DFSG #8? Why not? > > > You have the right to modify the code whether or not it is in Debian. > > > The license to the code is not specific to Debian so I don't believe > > > that this contradicts the spirit of DFSG #8. The rights are the same > > > for you as they are for users i.e. they have the right to go to Mozilla > > > and prove they produce good enough software to use Mozilla's trademark > > > and call it firefox just as you have. The license isn't specific to > > > Debian therefore this satisfies that clause. > > The code license is not in question. The trademark license/policy is. > > Right, my point is that the important thing for downstream of Debian is > that the code is free not what the name is or if it has to be changed. > If we can keep the name that's good for our users though so we > should. But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights that the user don't have. > > > The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via > > > Gervase in this long running debate which he has continued to follow > > > despite the criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. > > > Obviously if they turn around in the future and say "oh we hate your > > > blah patch you can't use the name" then we can /then/ make it a big > > > issue and change the name to iceweasel and be happy. I honestly > > > think this is unlikely though and to do so now would be not only be > > > premature but be harmful to users and your/the project's > > > relationship with Mozilla. > > Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the > > CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our > > ca-certificates package. However I can't have Firefox use that as a > > root CA by default and still use the trademark: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.cacert/2752 > > > This seems like a pretty unacceptable to me. > > Hmm. That almost sets a precedent for stopping any changes they don't > like via the blunt tool of the trademark license. It is worrying. > Do they have the same problems with the SPI root certs? What are their > reasons for this? Do they have the same concerns that you raise in > #309564? I asked the exact same question about the SPI root certs, and if read the whole thread you'll see he has the same problems. They're worried about compromised root certs, which is a valid concern. But that doesn't make their decisions right and ours wrong. They do have concerns about the trustability of CAcert certs. I'm mostly convinced they're no worse than other CA's. -- 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