trademarks [Was: Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?]
Hello list,
it follows some comments, corrections and questions about
trademarks, based on Steve answer; not realyl relevant to the
initial question/bug.
On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote:
If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that
provided upstream under the same name, there is no license issue; this is
nominative use which is not prohibited, regardless of the existence of a
trademark.
I don't agree. Same product don't give the authority to use the same
trademark. (think about a jeans factory who produce jeans for a
well-know mark. It cannot sell using the same mark on its own.).
Anyway we ship different products:
- different binaries (maybe they test more the compiler, the
program and the dinamic links), thus our version could cause image
damage if we have something broken in binary path
- a lot more architectures (so broken behaviour due portability
could cause image damage)
- different support
- different distribution channel (in principle they could track
how many official ("1-level") installation of various packages
they have. (IIRC distribution channel can also be controlled by
trademark [see "grey imports"])
Anyway we want security support, so we fall inevitably in your second case:
If the source code is modified, and this modification requires
us to give the software a different name, this is not a freeness problem -
this is expressly permitted under DFSG #4.
ok
We do not require that the
maintainer of a package pre-emptively rename the work in anticipation of
such modifications;
No, I think it a requirement by ftp-masters. And IIRC the Mozilla
trademark problem was about our liberty to do security updates without
need of a authorizations.
and we routinely ship modified versions of source code
using package names which match the upstream trademarks, on the grounds that
package names are not trade but computer interfaces, and are thus also not
trademark infringement.
I was thinking because upstream allowed it (implicit license). Our
internal requirement to ask for authorization to pack a software
"can we pack your software 'foo-bar' for Debian and others?" implicitly
grant us also the use of ev. trademark license for package name.
It is the first time I read a motivation like yours, so I'm curious
about what the others think about trademarks.
ciao
cate
Reply to: