On Wednesday 06 December 2006 16:19, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:05, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > Your argument is akin to allowing someone to trademark a specific > > > shape of a light bulb which coveys a functional advantage due to > > > the interaction of the lightbulb and lamp, and then requiring them > > > to redesign the lamp because the design of the lamp brought about > > > a contrived situtation where the bulb design was favorable. > > > > The difference between the lightbulb and the debian package, in my > > mind, is that one is a system of distribution created by Debian for > > its own purpose. The other is the physical reality of the lightbulb. > > One is mandated by Debian's choice, the other by the laws of > > physics. > > The later is mandated by the choice of the lightbulb manufacturer to > be functional in the *pre-existing* design of lamp, not the laws of > physics.[1] It's no more or less contrived than the pre-existing > design of Debian which uses package names as dependency identifiers. > Using the lightbulb shape in the packaging of the lightbulbs or the > logo of the company may be prohibited as that is a non-functional > usage.
Okay, I think we've drifted from our point of origin. The lightbulb analogy comes from the case law on a light bulb design patent which had expired. The patent holder tried to argue tradedress but the court struck it down because allowing tradedress would have resulted in a defacto patent of without expiration. > > Most importantly, Debian *can* distribute Iceweasel without ever > > mentioning Firefox, the lightbulb maker could not. Debian just > > doesn't want to be bothered with the hassel of having to build the > > brand of Iceweasel, so it appears to have decided to co-opt the > > Firefox name. > > This would be an issue if we were distributing iceweasel as if it were > firefox. We're not. We're providing the minimal necessary technical > package required to allow for a smooth transition to our users. Doing > anything less would leave our users running old versions of firefox > without security support, etc. I'm not arguing for allowing for wider > use of the mark, only its use in this very specific area. See my forth coming response to Mr. Poole's email on this point. > > A Depends automatically gets the package... and since the package > > includes that symlink, it seems to make all the difference in the > > world. > > So do Recommends: in many frontends by default. [And indeed, it's not > technically required that the Depends: install the package we've got > either; the user could just as easily have a package that provides > iceweasel, or a real firefox source which actually installs a firefox > branded browser.[2]] > > > it doesn't change the fact that all the debian users who got firefox > > during the past X years it is available are now running iceweasel > > and largely unaware of the difference or distinction. > > How can they not know that it was different and distinct? They're told > that it's installing iceweasel. All of the branding is totally > different. There's no non-functional mention of the firefox name > anywhere. But I didn't ASK for iceweasel to be installed. I asked for firefox, got firefox. Years later I asked to update my system and suddenly debian decided to not only get rid of firefox but to add iceweasel. That I was told I wasn't getting the product I asked for is not the issue. > Don Armstrong > > 1: Indeed, in this case, the "laws" of physics apply equally, [or at > least the currently understood theories under which physics operates > under] since we can no more go back in time and start calling the > original packages iceweasel than the bulb manufacturer can go back and > redesign the lamps. > > 2: In fact, if actually necessary, there's no reason that the version > number of the firefox transition package couldn't be the minimum > necessary to allow this transition to allow "real firefox" packages to > automatically superceed it. I'm not an expert at debian packaging, but won't a package the provides the file '/usr/bin/firefox' fail if iceweasel is also installed since it also has a file name '/usr/bin/firefox'? -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown