Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:50, Michael Poole wrote:
> To the contrary, preserving a product's name is the default mode of
> permissions for free and open source software. It is quite rare for
> software to impose a renaming requirement as permitted by DFSG#4.
>
> As just one example, Linus Torvalds owns the registered trademark
> "Linux" and the Linux Mark Institute maintains it in good standing by
> enforcing appropriate use of the mark. However, distributions still
> may (and do) use the mark to identify heavily modified versions of the
> Linux kernel. There is no real confusion whether the Linux packages
> distributed by Debian are different than the ones distributed by Linus
> Torvalds, Red Hat, Montavista, or any other party.
Yes, but LMI does not have a policy against such use, so that's fine.
> From my understanding, that was also the original rule for Mozilla and
> Firefox. The Mozilla Foundation decided to change its rules, becoming
> an exception to the general scheme in free software. (As an
> uninvolved layperson, I believe that the Mozilla Foundation adopted
> the policy with the goal of preventing Firefox from becoming a generic
> mark.) It was this change of policy that led to the creation of
> Iceweasel. Given that the "firefox" transitional package exists
> solely because Debian exercised the previous implicit license, it
> seems like a reasonable and eminently defensible use of the name.
A tale of woe to be certain, but I don't think it changes the analysis.
Debian-Legal routinely takes the position of assuming upstream is a "bad guy"
and is out to screw over not only Debian but every distributor and mirror on
the globe. Mozilla has a good case here, and while minds may differ on the
outcome, it is not clear cut. Why are we assuming the best in this situation
but not others?
--
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: