On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 08:53:44PM -0600, Morgan Gangwere wrote: > On 9/12/2010 8:42 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Simply put, a trademark license, even a restrictive one, has no impact on > > DFSG compliance because it's unrelated to whether or not you use the > > software in question. > PMI, but isn't that exactly opposite the reasoning behind the > Firefox/Iceweasel rebrand? The iceweasel rebranding was done in response to a restrictive *copyright* license on the firefox logo. This combined with the hard-line stance taken by upstream regarding the use of their name led the maintainer to decide that the best course of action was to rename the package; but the rename was done at the maintainer's discretion, only the firefox logo was actually a DFSG problem. > > Also, please don't ask trademark holders for permission to package software > > under the trademarked name; this only leads to the confused belief that we > > *need* such permission to use trademarks as package names, and we don't. > Isn't it a good idea to CYA when you're not sure? Or has Debian taken an > Ask for forgiveness later rather than permission now policy? If you want to CYA wrt legalities, you should be asking Debian *legal counsel* for advice regarding how to handle it - not running off and asking for permission for things we already have a right to do. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature