Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?]
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>
> 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.).
Indeed, but the factory could say that it also makes jeans for that
mark and that would not be trademark infringement because it would be
honest descriptive use of the mark. (Of course, it may be a breach of
their contract with the mark holder.)
So, there is a boundary or limit somewhere there. A trademark is
not as restrictive as some imaginary copyright-for-names.
[...]
> > 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.
Whose internal requirement? If debian.org, where is it? Maybe I
should be contacting upstream to ask for authorisation instead of
relying on LICENSE, but it's been some time since I uploaded a truly
new package and I took a quick look at policy, devref and NM guide
without spotting such a requirement.
> It is the first time I read a motivation like yours, so I'm curious
> about what the others think about trademarks.
I think they're mostly irrelevant for package names and command names
because they are an indication of the services provided by the
package, in accordance with honest practices, as illustrated by
stating our upstream source, so they're not infringing.
But I'm not aware of precedent, so I feel that renaming may often be a
good way of avoiding trouble with a well-funded aggressive trademark
holder who claims package or command names are covered.
Hope that informs,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: