Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 12:48, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>> > What do I get if I run it?
>>
>> There's nothing in the package, so you don't get anything.
>>
>> > If it's just a "Sorry, Firefox(TM) not available for legel reasons,
>> > we recommend Iceweasel instead", then that's fine.
>>
>> What is being done is the technical equivalent; merely recommending
>> iceweasel has technical problems because not all frontends support
>> recommends. Moreover, in Debian, there's no way that you'd just have
>> the firefox package installed, so a Depends: is the proper dependency
>> according to policy. If you actually bother to look at the package
>> description, you'll see:
>
> Trademark law does not care about Debian's technical limitations. The
> functionality doctrine is about real world functional limitations imposed on
> tradedress. As this is neither tradedress nor a real world functional
> limitation, it is incorrect to continually invoke this doctrine in hope that
> you will convince us otherwise.
Trademark law is not strictly analogous to patent or copyright law.
Trademark law's purpose is not to encourage or reward the commercial
use of new marks, but to stem certain kinds of pernicious consumer
confusion. As it is not simply a question of owning and controlling
rights (for a limited period), it is incorrect to continually treat
trademark law like those others in hope that you will convince us
otherwise.
Michael Poole
Reply to: