Re: Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 07:18:37AM +0100, Alban browaeys wrote:
> I would say that debian does not treat trademark as a licence. Else we
> could not release with the debian "release" logo , nor the debian
> trademarked name.
> That would be pretty cool :)
That's broken reasoning; it's like saying "we should not treat software
that prohibits commercial use as non-free, since otherwise Debian could
not prohibit commercial use". Just because Debian wants to do something
doesn't make it free; if it's non-free, Debian should stop doing it, too.
(The reasoning that goes "Trademarks don't make a work non-free, because
you can always remove the trademark and functional elements aren't
protected by trademark" is much better, though there are a lot of questions,
such as "if it takes substantial effort to remove restricted trademarks
from a work, should Debian do so, to ensure that the freedoms required by
the DFSG can actually be exercised?", and others.)
> I am out of laugh thinking of we tellling the release manager "ehrm
> sorry we have an RC on debian, it is not free. Could you contact the SPI
> to ask if they agree to "free" the debian name !" :->
"Debian does it, therefore it's free" isn't a line of reasoning that
one can use and still take Freeness seriously.