Re: Proposed MBF - mentions of the word "Ubuntu"
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:36:49PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In the event that an over-enthusiastic mark holder tries to tell Debian that
> their nominative use of a trademark (in a package name, file name, etc.) is
> infringing, the appropriate course of action for Debian to take is to
> *reject these claims*, and continue using the mark. Not to buckle under
> pressure and set a bad precedent for other mark holders to follow; not to
> rename the software and cause confusion for our users. When we know we're
> on the right side of the law, we should be resolute in our defense of our
> rights. It shouldn't become a game where we pick and choose which names we
> will and won't allow into the distribution based on how friendly the
> trademark holder is.
I think I understand your point of view, and I really appreciate your
moderation here as I like to be moderated myself when possible.
I have an additional question here: is this position really the best
to protect our downstreams? What will we do if Canonical get
"over-enthusiastic" against a Debian derivative that is e.g. not
Ubuntu-based?
I agree that the question may be completely artificial at this point,
but I think that ensuring that there is no legal threat over Debian
derivative (neither now nor in the future) is a neat goal for our
ecosystem.
Note that this is a real question, I have no answer myself :)
Bye, Mt.
--
Les coups et les douleurs, ca se discute pas.
Reply to: