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

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Baptiste Carvello (bcarvello@altern.org) wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> First I wanted to say again that whatever your final decision, a build 
> system
> that optionally does the renaming would still be appreciated. It would be 
> even
> better if the MoFo would do it themselves, of course. I'm sure some users 
> would
> feel better if they are able to ponder the risks for themselves. Also 
> remember
> that if the MoFo sends you a cease-and-desist letter, you won't have an 
> advanced
> warning, so you'd better have plan B ready.

I don't need a plan B, if they send a cease-and-desist, I just stop
using the trademarks, simple (well not entirely simple for me, but
straight-forward enough).
> Also, your mail made me think about the freedom of software. I have a 
> problem
> with the fact that you won't aknowledge the MoFo's offer, but will accept it
> implicitly by keeping the package as is if they don't complain. What 
> difference
> does it make to the user ?

If the user doesn't care about this issue, then it makes no difference
to them. What's your point? 

> I think what's important, and what DFSG deals with, is what freedom the user
> has, regardless of what Debian does. What about Firefox ?
> 1) users may distribute a modified version.
> 2) users may not call their modified version "Firefox".
> So the question is whether 2) is too obnoxious for the software to still be
> free. If yes, then Firefox has to go in non-free, if no, then it doesn't 
> matter
> how it is called in Debian.
> As a maintainer, you can help make the renaming painless, so that 2) becomes
> less problematic. IMHO with a suitable building system, 2) would be 
> perfectly
> acceptable.
> By keeping the package as firefox, you are making very little change to the
> user. The only freedom you are taking away from them is:
> 3) the freedom to call their modified version the same as Debian.
> This freedom is mostly irrelevant. The only reason a user would want that 
> is if
> some script directly calls the binary, instead of using the relevant 
> alternative
> symlink (/usr/bin/mozilla, I think). If the Policy documents that you 
> should not
> rely on /usr/bin/firefox, 3) is no problem.

The trademark goes beyond just the naming of the binary. 
> Then again, what may be desirable for the user is to call their version
> "Firefox", not "the same as Debian".
> Well, I hope I made my point of view as a freedom-concerned user clearer to
> whoever will make the decision. Btw, I support your calling to the DPL, and 
> I
> hope he accepts to make the decision, now that everybody had the 
> opportunity to
> express their view.

Again, this discussion is less about the freeness of the software and
more about what kind of deals Debian can make to distribute software. 

> Keep on with the good work, I don't really care how it's called !
> Cheers, BC

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: