Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Tuesday 05 December 2006 13:57, Jeff Carr wrote:
>> I notice that recently you have complied with Mozilla's request to not
>> use their trademarks for your browser packages. However, you can't
>> also use their trademark to switch users to a competing product.
>> ("bait-and-switch") The same trademark issues are why there is not a
>> package called openoffice. It must be called openoffice.org.
>
> First off, whoa. These are awfully specific facts and directions you are
> giving here, and unless you are a licensed lawyer or a representative of
> Mozilla, I would strongly avoid the use of the term "must" and "can't."
> Suggest all you want, but directives such as the above are tantamount to
> practicing law without a license.
>
> That having been said, I am inclined to agree that this presents a very murky
> issue made complicated by the debian packaging system. If 'apt-get install
> firefox' is functionally equivalent to 'apt-get install iceweasel' then you
> likely have either plan old "consumer confusion" or "initial consumer
> confusion." Both are bad.
When and in what particulars do you propose this confusion would
occur? Neither the desktop icon (as the most promiment entry point)
nor the package (in data or metadata) leave much room for confusion.
Wikipedia has an entry for a phrase[1] that seems to apply.
[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
Comparably, "apt-get install pgp" (PGP trademark owned by Network
Associates, Inc) is functionally equivalent to "apt-get install
pgpgpg". There are deprecation-related reasons to get rid of the pgp
virtual package, but it seems that your argument applies to it as
well.
The term for "made up term" you were looking for is fanciful mark.
However, if you enumerate the features provided by both Iceweasel and
Mozilla Firefox, I suspect that most consumers who identify anything
by the word "Firefox" would identify the feature set -- and not the
particular software packaging -- as Firefox. On that basis, the
functionality doctrine is apposite.
Michael Poole
Reply to: