Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
Sean Kellogg writes:
> 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?
In this case, I am willing to assume reasonable behavior because
upstream is a known quantity and the time window is limited. When
analyzing an arbitrary license, I assume that any villain might
contribute code to, or buy rights to code in, Debian. However, the
Mozilla Foundation seems unlikely to sell the mark or become evil
before the following Debian release comes out and removes the
"firefox" transitional package.
Michael Poole
Reply to: