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

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

* John Hasler (jhasler@debian.org) wrote:
> Michael writes:
> > Debian doesn't "need" such an arrangement, as I argued in a previous
> > thread six months ago; there's the Coty v. Prestonettes standard and all
> > that.  But IMHO it would be advisable for both sides if such an
> > arrangement were reached.
> Exactly.  If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our users.
> And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not
> put us in a privileged position with respect to them: they have the legal
> right to do everything that we want to do with or without permission.
> So let's accept the "arrangement" and move on.  There is no DFSG problem
> here even if we do accept the notion that the DFSG applies to trademarks.

If we don't need the "arragement", why exactly would we accept 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: