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

Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few weeks, for which I thank all involved. Comments are in square brackets.

This assumes that DFSG #8 means that Debian can be given rights over and above the rights necessary to make a program free, as long as all the rights necessary to make it free are transferable.

1) The Foundation grants Debian, and all redistributors of the official Debian packages of the Foundation's products, the right to label those packages with a name containing the trademark.

[This document would apply to "Firefox", "Thunderbird", and any other trademarks on software names we may hold in future. The name would be Firefox, Community Edition or whatever is agreed between the Foundation and the maintainer. It's not important to this document.]

2) The Foundation agrees to document the procedure for changing the name to its satisfaction, for the benefit of Debian and anyone else, and to work to make that procedure as simple as possible.

[This means that if you or a Debian redistributor ever has to change the name, it hopefully won't be too onerous. And it means we can't blindside anyone with 'but you forgot to change *this* instance".]

3) The Foundation will review the current Debian package at freeze time, and at other times at their discretion, and bring any issues they have to the attention of the maintainer. The maintainer is not responsible for notifying the Foundation of any changes he may make to the package, or obligated to make any change that the Foundation may suggest. However, in the unlikely event of irreconcilable differences occurring between the maintainer and the Foundation, the name of the package will have to be changed in all as-yet-unreleased versions of Debian.

[This gives you a free hand over the development process, and us the oversight that we need by law to be seen to be having.]

4) The Foundation agrees not to withdraw the permission more than three months into a freeze.

[This is intended to mean that we can't require an inconvenient change just when you are about to release; if we don't notice until it's too late, it's our problem. My understanding of the Debian process is not complete; 'freeze' may not be the correct term here.]

5) The Foundation agrees not to withdraw the permission for versions of the product shipping in stable releases of Debian, provided all updates to the package are within Debian's guidelines for package updates in stable releases.

[You have carte blanche to make security fixes. We are happy because your own procedures say you can't gut the package and replace it with something different. And you are happy because you have to follow your own procedures anyway, so it's not a burden.]

6) The Foundation agrees that it's not Debian's responsibility to make sure the distributors of any derivative works of Debian packages have an implicit or explicit trademark license from the Foundation.

[No hassle for you.]

7) The Foundation requests that Debian document, in a place where it might be seen by package modifiers, the potential need to acquire such a trademark licence.

[I hope you would view such a notice as a service to your users - but distributors of modified versions may need a license whether you add the notice or not.

This is hopefully in line with DFSG #4, which says that packages are free even if derived works are required to carry a different name.

It is also in line with free software licenses where changes require other changes, e.g. the GPL 2a) where code changes must be documented.]

Is this a runner?


One final note: I can't completely exclude the possibility that someone higher up at the Foundation (e.g. Mitchell Baker) will say that I've overreached myself. But I don't know of any reason why that would be the case, and I'm negotiating in good faith. I would, of course, get a final version approved by all necessary parties :-)

Reply to: