Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:23:39PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst (email@example.com) wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > * Wouter Verhelst (firstname.lastname@example.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.
Is that a given, or is that a theory?
If it's a given, I agree with you.
If it's a theory, you should find out whether it's true. If it's not,
there's no problem.
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond