On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:58:10AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > In the case of firefox, we're not distributing code identical to something > that's been made available upstream under the name "firefox", we are > patching the code with patches that have not been approved by upstream. If > we were distributing a package that directly corresponded to upstream code > (even to an arbitrary CVS tag/revision), I would argue that we wouldn't > *need* a trademark license from MoFo to distribute it under that name. We currently patch the buildsystem, some helper modules, to support more than one installed version, and the default config. > If we're patching the xen hypervisor, then yes, we're again distributing > something that is a derived work of xen rather than xen itself, so there's > legitimate cause for concern that this is a trademark infringement. The hypervisor themself is unchanged but the tools are not. So I think we can at least have the hypervisor with this name. > If the maintainers or ftpmasters are not comfortable that package names are > safe from claims of trademark infringement by upstreams, then I think we > should bring the question to SPI's counsel. I relayed the question to RedHat as they may also get problems with it. Bastian -- The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank. -- Scotty
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature