Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoud@engelfriet.net> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoud@engelfriet.net> wrote:
> > > It is true that a purely functional indication cannot be affected by a
> > > trademark. So if something cannot function without having part of it
> > > named ``firefox'', then that would not be trademark infringement.
> >
> > The firefox transition package cannot function fully without its
> > Package control field being labelled firefox and a /usr/bin/firefox
> > (IMO having that in iceweasel may be a bug in a couple of ways).
>
> I guess then I don't understand why. What I saw was a package
> called 'firefox' that Depends: on Iceweasel. So that means
> if I type ``apt-get install firefox'', apt-get will see the
> dependency and install Iceweasel. That's where I got worried.
I wonder if there's any good way for the firefox transition to
silently transit users of the old firefox package but bale out
if someone requests it as a new install.
> > 1. That firefox transition package is not a web browser, so is the mark
> > relevant or confusing?
>
> It's not that the transition package is called 'firefox'.
> It's the fact that the package Depends: on Iceweasel and
> so the act of running ``apt-get install firefox'' results in
> Iceweasel being installed and not the Firefox browser.
I just checked and apt-get displays what it is going to install and
asks ``Do you want to continue? [Y/n]'' unless the user has explicitly
configured their system not to do so. How is that significantly different
to 'coke' at the pub being a transition package that asks whether you
want to continue with Pepsi?
> > 2. No trade takes place with apt-get, so are any trademarks relevant?
>
> Good point. It's always about context. I would say that
> commercial vendors of Debian (-based) software are trading
> among other things this package. They could be held liable for
> a false designation of origin or false label (15 USC 1125).
> http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html
I can see that they could, if they claim that the software includes
Firefox in connection with the trade, or they put that on the label
of debian software. If the package is silently included, it seems a
mere functional thing, similar to lists of unix for DOSsers 'equivalent'
programs. Are there cases where something like the lists of equivalents
have caused a successful trademark prosecution?
It may be helpful to point out this potential problem to debian vendors
in the notes (something like ``don't use labels that say it includes
Firefox'') but vendors have to beware stuff like that already.
In short, this looks like a niche case which depends on:
- firefox being a term for a specific browser, instead of the family
of browsers originating from the code-base and most of which have been
permitted to be labelled Firefox under both MoFo and MozCorp rule;
- the firefox package control term being judged non-functional;
- the apt-get confirmation request being judged insufficient;
- a commercial vendor using the mark in commerce somehow.
Ordinarily, I'd shy away from this, but it looks like total submission
to all trademark fears would result in more fiddly upgrades for users.
I feel that MozCorp's bizarre submarine attack on packaging should not
damage debian any more than it absolutely must. Is there much evidence
that each of the above conditions would occur? That is:
- what is firefox now / How have trademark proceedings viewed it?
- are package control terms functional or not?
- is the confirmation request adequate?
- how do vendors use debian's package names in commerce?
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: