On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 12:05:21AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > 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 :) You probably want to talk to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for this. > 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. [...] > Well having transition packages would definitely be part of the plan, > so that shouldn't be an issue. FWIW, I don't see any substantial difference between a package named "firefox" that is a transition package, and one that contains the browser software. If one is determined to infringe a trademark, why would the other not? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
