On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:50, Michael Poole wrote: > To the contrary, preserving a product's name is the default mode of > permissions for free and open source software. It is quite rare for > software to impose a renaming requirement as permitted by DFSG#4. > > As just one example, Linus Torvalds owns the registered trademark > "Linux" and the Linux Mark Institute maintains it in good standing by > enforcing appropriate use of the mark. However, distributions still > may (and do) use the mark to identify heavily modified versions of the > Linux kernel. There is no real confusion whether the Linux packages > distributed by Debian are different than the ones distributed by Linus > Torvalds, Red Hat, Montavista, or any other party.
Yes, but LMI does not have a policy against such use, so that's fine. > From my understanding, that was also the original rule for Mozilla and > Firefox. The Mozilla Foundation decided to change its rules, becoming > an exception to the general scheme in free software. (As an > uninvolved layperson, I believe that the Mozilla Foundation adopted > the policy with the goal of preventing Firefox from becoming a generic > mark.) It was this change of policy that led to the creation of > Iceweasel. Given that the "firefox" transitional package exists > solely because Debian exercised the previous implicit license, it > seems like a reasonable and eminently defensible use of the name. A tale of woe to be certain, but I don't think it changes the analysis. Debian-Legal routinely takes the position of assuming upstream is a "bad guy" and is out to screw over not only Debian but every distributor and mirror on the globe. Mozilla has a good case here, and while minds may differ on the outcome, it is not clear cut. Why are we assuming the best in this situation but not others? -- 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