* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Jun 16, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to > > determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. Let me try > Good. This was not obvious at all by reading your precedent postings.
Ok, I did state that many times I thought, I was trying to get that point across. > > another example. If, say, the Apache Foundation came to us and said, > > "Sure the code is free, but that's our trademark you're using. It will > > cost you $5000 a year to use that trademark in Debian". Now we could > > easily afford this as a project, would we do it? I don't think we > > would do it, even though we could because a strict interpretation of > > the DFSG says trademarks don't matter. > We would quickly tell them to FOAD, because it's a request that > everybody would agree is unreasonable. I'm glad we can at least see eye to eye on this one. > > The point I'm trying to make is that clearly not all trademark terms > > are reasonable. > Sure. And the point most people here are trying to make is that they > consider the MF demands reasonable and acceptable for Debian. Indeed, the most vocal (and rational) contributors seem to be saying these demands are reasonable. I'm still not convinced. > Now that we agreed that trademarks are not forbidden by the DFSG, if you > really feel strongly about the need for users of a totally unrestricted > firefox package, why don't you build it as well? Then users and custom > distributions would be able to choose the one which better suits their > needs. Twice as much work? Thanks a bunch :-P -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
