Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 13:39, Michael Poole wrote:
> 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.
Yes, consumer confusion. I have suggested that debian users who do not follow
debian-legal are confused about the relationship between iceweasel and
firefox. I have suggested that a package firefox that installs essentially
nothing on its own while forcing the install of iceweasel is confusing. I
have further suggested that providing a /usr/bin/firefox
to /usr/bin/iceweasel is confusing. Confusion abounds.
> 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.
That strikes me as uncalled for.
Trademark law is totally different than copyright or patent law. I don't seem
to recall saying or implying otherwise. But I, and others on this list, have
given numerous reasons for why the package firefox could be seen as an
infringement of the Firefox mark... and the primary response back has
been "it'll be hard to get debian users to learn about iceweasel if we don't
push it on those asking for firefox."
Well, excuse me, but isn't that the whole point?! Isn't that why Mozilla gave
Debian the boot... they don't want people using the Debianized Firefox code
and thinking it is, in fact, Firefox?! By packing iceweasel as firefox
Debian is seeking to have its cake and eat it too.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@u.washington.edu
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh well, what you waiting for?
...it's all right
...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Reply to: