Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El mi?rcoles, 6 de diciembre de 2006 a las 16:26:27 +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet escrib?a:
> > What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> > would carry the name firefox. There's no such thing as a firefox. There
>
> It is not a package for Iceweasel that is called "firefox". It is an empty
> package called "firefox" that depends on "iceweasel" and carries a
> description that says that it is an empty package put together to aid on
> upgrades from firefox to iceweasel and that it can be safely uninstalled.
What do I get if I run it?
If it's just a "Sorry, Firefox(TM) not available for legel
reasons, we recommend Iceweasel instead", then that's fine.
If it actually goes on to install Iceweasel automatically,
then it's treading on thin ice. Giving people substitutes
for what they asked is not a good idea under trademark law.
That's why a bar has to say "Sorry, we don't have Coke,
would you like a Pepsi perhaps" instead of giving you
Pepsi when you ask for Coke. Even when they tell you
it's not Coke when they bring it to the table.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: