* 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 -----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