Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:46:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 07:49:32PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:04:25AM -0800, Sean Kellogg <skellogg@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > But consider for a moment that fact that iceweasel (at least the one I have
> > > installed) includes /usr/bin/firefox... which is a symlink to iceweasel.
> > > The file isn't part of the transition package, it's part of the debian
> > > product. The confusion then lies not just with the transition package, but
> > > with the iceweasel package itself.
>
> > I agree it's a problem.
>
> Why? An executable name and a package name are both functional elements
> AFAICS, and we shouldn't be worrying about trademarks for either of them
> until
>
> - the trademark holder tells us to stop
> - we get legal advice to the effect that the trademark holder has a case
I was more thinking about /usr/bin/firefox not having its place in the
iceweasel package. More in the firefox package.
Mike
Reply to: