Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 16:19, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:05, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Your argument is akin to allowing someone to trademark a specific
> > > shape of a light bulb which coveys a functional advantage due to
> > > the interaction of the lightbulb and lamp, and then requiring them
> > > to redesign the lamp because the design of the lamp brought about
> > > a contrived situtation where the bulb design was favorable.
> >
> > The difference between the lightbulb and the debian package, in my
> > mind, is that one is a system of distribution created by Debian for
> > its own purpose. The other is the physical reality of the lightbulb.
> > One is mandated by Debian's choice, the other by the laws of
> > physics.
>
> The later is mandated by the choice of the lightbulb manufacturer to
> be functional in the *pre-existing* design of lamp, not the laws of
> physics.[1] It's no more or less contrived than the pre-existing
> design of Debian which uses package names as dependency identifiers.
> Using the lightbulb shape in the packaging of the lightbulbs or the
> logo of the company may be prohibited as that is a non-functional
> usage.
Okay, I think we've drifted from our point of origin. The lightbulb analogy
comes from the case law on a light bulb design patent which had expired. The
patent holder tried to argue tradedress but the court struck it down because
allowing tradedress would have resulted in a defacto patent of without
expiration.
> > Most importantly, Debian *can* distribute Iceweasel without ever
> > mentioning Firefox, the lightbulb maker could not. Debian just
> > doesn't want to be bothered with the hassel of having to build the
> > brand of Iceweasel, so it appears to have decided to co-opt the
> > Firefox name.
>
> This would be an issue if we were distributing iceweasel as if it were
> firefox. We're not. We're providing the minimal necessary technical
> package required to allow for a smooth transition to our users. Doing
> anything less would leave our users running old versions of firefox
> without security support, etc. I'm not arguing for allowing for wider
> use of the mark, only its use in this very specific area.
See my forth coming response to Mr. Poole's email on this point.
> > A Depends automatically gets the package... and since the package
> > includes that symlink, it seems to make all the difference in the
> > world.
>
> So do Recommends: in many frontends by default. [And indeed, it's not
> technically required that the Depends: install the package we've got
> either; the user could just as easily have a package that provides
> iceweasel, or a real firefox source which actually installs a firefox
> branded browser.[2]]
>
> > it doesn't change the fact that all the debian users who got firefox
> > during the past X years it is available are now running iceweasel
> > and largely unaware of the difference or distinction.
>
> How can they not know that it was different and distinct? They're told
> that it's installing iceweasel. All of the branding is totally
> different. There's no non-functional mention of the firefox name
> anywhere.
But I didn't ASK for iceweasel to be installed. I asked for firefox, got
firefox. Years later I asked to update my system and suddenly debian decided
to not only get rid of firefox but to add iceweasel. That I was told I
wasn't getting the product I asked for is not the issue.
> Don Armstrong
>
> 1: Indeed, in this case, the "laws" of physics apply equally, [or at
> least the currently understood theories under which physics operates
> under] since we can no more go back in time and start calling the
> original packages iceweasel than the bulb manufacturer can go back and
> redesign the lamps.
>
> 2: In fact, if actually necessary, there's no reason that the version
> number of the firefox transition package couldn't be the minimum
> necessary to allow this transition to allow "real firefox" packages to
> automatically superceed it.
I'm not an expert at debian packaging, but won't a package the provides the
file '/usr/bin/firefox' fail if iceweasel is also installed since it also has
a file name '/usr/bin/firefox'?
--
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: