Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
> >>every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified
> >>version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the
> >>extent names have been incorporated into functional parts of the work,
> >>*which includes a requirement to change an image, as well as doing a
> >>global s/Mozilla/other/g*, I do not consider it Free to require them to
> >>be changed, and I do not believe it is covered under DFSG4.
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > What does this have to do with trademarks?
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:07:43PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> This entire discussion concerns the interaction of trademarks with the
Indeed. [That's why I asked.]
> This particular argument was regarding what restrictions I
> believe to be acceptable under DFSG4 and what unacceptable; the exact
> mechanism used to enforce those restrictions is not really relevant.
Uh... ok. I don't see the relevance, but I'll accept that you
> >>(Personally, this argument is further strengthening my opinion that
> >>DFSG4 has little redeeming value, and that we would be better served by
> > I'll grant you that it's possible to rewrite the DFSG such that any
> > software which mentions any trademark would be "non-free".
> > Perhaps, by extension, this could also extend to all software in any
> > countries which have trademark laws because the software doesn't grant
> > rights to the trademarks of that country.
> This is not at all what I meant, nor do I think that is a good idea.
I think that something of that nature is exactly what would be achieved
by eliminating DFSG4 from the social contract.