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

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Raphaël Hertzog (hertzog@debian.org) wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 14:45 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
> > I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to
> > determine is if we should use the marks within Debian.
> If it's free, the project as a whole has already decided to be able to
> include it. For the rest, it's up to the maintainer to decide what is
> reasonable in his point of view.
> Apparently, you couldn't make up your mind and so you asked for other
> opinions. And you had plenty :
> > Indeed, the most vocal (and rational) contributors seem to be saying
> > these demands are reasonable. I'm still not convinced. 
> Either you have no opinion and you should be following the majority
> because that's was the point of your request, or you have one and you
> should just follow you own decision.

So either I should do what I want or subjugate my will to the project?
Clearly I have my own opinions, but I don't work in a vacuum. I wanted
to know what the rest of the project thought to balance my decision
against, that was the whole point of the thread. It's not so

> It looks like you have your opinion and you based your opinion with
> respect to point #8 of the DFSG. We explained you that your reasoning
> was ill-advised because DFSG stands for "DF Software G" and not "DF
> Trademark G". What can I say more ?
> If you decide using "firefox" is not reasonable, please rename the
> package and do whatever work you like with the renamed package. But let
> someone else (which has no problem with the MoFo trademark license)
> maintain a package named "firefox" !
> Sometime the project as a whole has the last word on something because
> it is related to our basic texts. Sometimes the project as a whole has
> nothing to say and it's up to the maintainer to take the decision. And
> this case it's clearly your decision.

I think you're really stretching here and claiming your
interpretations are shared by most of the project.

> > Let me try another example. If, say, the Apache Foundation came to us and said,
> > "Sure the code is free, but that's our trademark you're using. It will
> > cost you $5000 a year to use that trademark in Debian". Now we could
> > easily afford this as a project, would we do it? I don't think we
> > would do it, even though we could because a strict interpretation of
> > the DFSG says trademarks don't matter.
> Clearly we would never accept such a deal. We're all open minded but
> we're not dumb. :-)
> > The point I'm trying to make is that clearly not all trademark terms
> > are reasonable. Their certainly are situations where we would find
> > using the trademark unacceptable, even if the DFSG "apparently" says
> > we can. 
> Sure ! In the example you take with $5000 fees each year, the project
> would never accept to pay that on its own fund. But if we have a rich
> maintainer (or a sponsor) willing to pay that for us I'm pretty
> convinced we'd accept nevertheless because it's unrelated to the fact
> that it's free software.

So you're saying Debian as a project is too cheap to pay for it
itself, but if some rich benefactor did it would be alright? I don't
what to say, that seems extremely contradictory.

> > Is this Mozilla situation acceptable? I think it is, 
> So end of discussion (but I think you mistyped ... :-))

I have really got to proof

> > I think the spirit of DFSG #8 is that Debian should not have rights that the
> > user doesn't have in terms of the software we distribute. Yes, these
> > are not copyrights rights, but they are still rights.
> And we don't agree on that. And it looks like several other people don't
> agree with you on that point.
> But this point of the discussion won't be resolved without a rewrite of
> the DFSG with the added clarification. In the mean time, assume your
> opinion and do whatever you feel is needed. But don't impose your
> interpretation to the whole project when clearly there's no consensus.

Enjoy your rewrite of the DFSG. If it's anything like the views
expressed in this mail, I'll want none of it.

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: