* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:55:33AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:25:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > it's sad to see that the safer path (renaming Mozilla applications in > > > > order to avoid being restricted by any trademark policy) was really the > > > > one to choose... :-( > > > > That was my conclusion[1] and unfortunately it seems that the other > > > > possibility (reaching a trademark agreement) only worked for a short > > > > time. > > > > > I wonder if we can come up with a renaming scheme that makes it not too > > > > difficult for a user to find the right package to install. > > > > I don't know any reason we should believe that trademark prevents us from > > > using the name "firefox" for functional elements such as package names and > > > file/directory names. The trademark does of course prevent us from > > > labelling the *interface* "firefox" and using the logos; but we already > > > have > > > a build switch we can use to comply with those requirements. > > > Certainly file/directory names are functional, but the package name is > > both labelling and functional. If we call the package firefox, aren't > > we claiming that's what it is and hence infringing the mark? > > IANAL, and answering this question authoritatively would certainly require > one. I'm merely saying that I don't *know* any reason that trademark law > prevents us from using "firefox" for the package name, which I view as a > functional element.
Well can we get advice this advice? I know I can't afford it :) I'd be pretty certain that the Mozilla Corp would object to us keeping the package name. Having some sort of justification would be helpful. Keeping the package name would be great though, making things a lot less painful. > The only other instances I can remember of a maintainer renaming a package > in response to trademark claims are scrabble, and gnocatan. For scrabble, > the rename still hasn't even taken place, and I don't know if there's going > to be an upstream rename along with a package rename, but apparently the > ftpmasters rejected a package rename once already; for gnocatan, I was > involved in the upstream renaming process which was done at least as much > out of courtesy to the creator of Settlers of Catan as out of any belief > that we were infringing a trademark, and the package renaming was just done > to follow the upstream rename -- with dummy packages added to the archive to > provide an upgrade path. > > So neither of these are completely analogous to the firefox case, where it's > *upstream's* trademark triggering the rename and we're not exactly intending > to create a permanent fork. Yes, so not much help here :P > > I'd certainly like to keep the package name unchanged, but also if it is > > left as firefox and the browser presents itself as "Foobar" might that > > not confuse users? > > Do you think this would be more or less confusing than for users to not be > able to find a firefox package in the archive, despite many related packages > still referencing it by that name at the time of release? Well having transition packages would definitely be part of the plan, so that shouldn't be an issue. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
