On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner > > > > consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from > > > > the work, > > > > > > What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages > > > don't use any of the trademarked images and logos? > > > > If we don't use any trademarked images, logos, or phrases, what > > exactly are we talking about here? > > The term "Firefox" is what trademarked, and the only trademark still > in the Debian package AFAIK. That's what we're talking about.
Then that would be a "MoFo trademark" that is possibly "used in a manner [not] consistent with trademark law." If that was the case, it would be a mark that "would have to be expunged from the work." My main point here seems to have been lost: I am merely pointing out that the changes required are far more extensive than the renaming of a binary|script|package, but appear to involve substantial branding changes throughout the package; this seems to be a bit more extensive than the minor restriction that DFSG §4 allows. Don Armstrong -- "...Yet terrible as UNIX addiction is, there are worse fates. If UNIX is the heroin of operating systems, then VMS is barbiturate addiction, the Mac is MDMA, and MS-DOS is sniffing glue. (Windows is filling your sinuses with lucite and letting it set.) You owe the Oracle a twelve-step program." --The Usenet Oracle http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
