Re: Mozilla Firefox's icon and trademark
[This is so utterly -legal's territory. It's going over there] On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:41:23PM +1100, George Dekavalas wrote: Today I received this email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], so lets hope this helps [...] We definitely want to work with the Debian project such that Debian includes a copy of Mozilla Firefox that is named as such and includes our official logos. Our main concern is that, if we make our logos available as part of the source code that's licensed under the MPL, that would invalidate our trademarks. Sigh. As I understand it, a copyright licence and a trademark licence can be completely separate - and should be, normally. Mozilla can let us copy those logos to our hearts' content via a copyright licence, yet still restrict their use as a mark of trade. There is no reason why they can't provide their trademarks under a Free copyright licence such as the MPL. Copyright controls copying, not the way in which the copyrighted work is used. Similarly, a trademark controls how a mark of trade (such as a logo, image, saying, word, or other such thing) can be *used* regardless of the copyright status of the mark. If I create a logo confusingly similar[1] to the Mozilla Firefox logo, but as an independent creation, Mozilla can have no copyright claim against me - it is an independent creative work. However, they still have trademark rights to estoppel and compensatory damages if appropriate. As such, trying to control trademark use via a copyright licence is ridiculous. Please, Mozilla, use the correct branch of law for the correct purpose. You can use trademark infringement to great effect if necessary, while using copyright to prevent trademark infringement is trivially circumventable. There's no reason to be the e-book protection of the trademark world. - Matt [1] In trademark law terms.
Re: licensing confusion
Marek Habersack wrote, among other interesting stuff: [T]he thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make cryptlib not compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG. Huh? I see no such clauses[1], unless you're refering to the alternate terms of distribution. What made me wonder were the statements: ok, I have said it in other mail, the terms for the closed-source, commercial, license, is that it applies /if you dont want to or cannot use the FS-OSS license/. Cryptlib itself has it's own copyleft which on the face seems to be GPL compatible. [But I've only spent 2-3 minutes glancing at the license... closer examination is probably warranted.] I'd love to learn whether it can be packaged for Debian and used in Caudium :) As I have already said, I think so. But I am a newbie in debian-legal (I am a paralegal) and my opinion is non-authoritative. Oh, and we cannot relicense the Caudium code, as we aren't the original copyright holders of the entire code. Also, I would like to know whether it's ok for me to issue an ITP for Cryptlib. What you need to do is file an ITP, then bring the texts of the licenses themselves so they can be analyzed by -legal for their DFSG Freeness. Right, ok, that's what I'll do. thanks, marek Summarizing: Caudium (GPL) + Cryptlib (2clBSD) = OK Caudium + OpenSSL = not OK, maybe better try GNUTLS...? []s HTH Massa
Re: Mozilla Firefox's icon and trademark
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:13:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: [This is so utterly -legal's territory. It's going over there] And what's more, we just *had* this discussion in the past couple of days. It's even part of the same thread. On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:41:23PM +1100, George Dekavalas wrote: Today I received this email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], so lets hope this helps [...] We definitely want to work with the Debian project such that Debian includes a copy of Mozilla Firefox that is named as such and includes our official logos. Our main concern is that, if we make our logos available as part of the source code that's licensed under the MPL, that would invalidate our trademarks. Sigh. As I understand it, a copyright licence and a trademark licence can be completely separate - and should be, normally. Mozilla can let us copy those logos to our hearts' content via a copyright licence, yet still restrict their use as a mark of trade. There is no reason why they can't provide their trademarks under a Free copyright licence such as the MPL. Copyright controls copying, not the way in which the copyrighted work is used. Similarly, a trademark controls how a mark of trade (such as a logo, image, saying, word, or other such thing) can be *used* regardless of the copyright status of the mark. Precisely. Trademark law says that I cannot create an name/image/whatever which looks confusingly similar to the registered firefox trademarks and use them for something which is not firefox without the permission of the trademark holders. Even if it's entirely my own work, and provably not a derivative work of an official firefox logo. Copyright law says that I cannot take the official firefox logo, change it to look like something else entirely, and distribute it. We consider the former to be DFSG-free and the latter to be non-free (and require explicit permission to do the latter from the copyright holder). That's all there is to it. I can't imagine why Mozilla would want to forbid this, other than a total lack of comprehension of the difference between trademarks and copyrights. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Mozilla Firefox's icon and trademark
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We consider the former to be DFSG-free and the latter to be non-free (and require explicit permission to do the latter from the copyright holder). That's all there is to it. I can't imagine why Mozilla would want to forbid this, other than a total lack of comprehension of the difference between trademarks and copyrights. I can -- they're currently very concerned about unstable or poorly modified code being shipped as Firefox or Mozilla branded software. Debian *will* modify the Mozilla or Firefox products slightly to ship them -- introducing better FHS compliance, for example, and probably a few other things: Different bookmarks, different home page, maybe different text in some places and maybe different code. These may impact the stability or user experience of the product, so they're concerned about us using their protected marks. As a consequence of the above, even if we did have a copyright license to modify the icon or the bitmap of the text Firefox, we wouldn't have a trademark license to use the word 'Firefox' to describe our modified product. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experience with convincing people to DFSGize their licenses?
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:16:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 06:14:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Mar 3, 2004, at 17:24, Matthias Urlichs wrote: The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend for (mostly-)non-program files? Depending on what they want, either the 2-clause BSD/MIT X11 (nearly the same) or the GPL. [ The 2-clause BSD is the one without the advertising clause ] I think we need to start saying just MIT or MIT/old X11; we can't really say MIT/X11 any more. Eh? Why can't we? What's the new MIT/X11 license? -- G. Branden Robinson| A fundamentalist is someone who Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves [EMAIL PROTECTED] | virtue. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Experience with convincing people to DFSGize their licenses?
Branden Robinson: I think we need to start saying just MIT or MIT/old X11; we can't really say MIT/X11 any more. Eh? Why can't we? What's the new MIT/X11 license? I think he meant X11 (the new, problematic one) does not equals MIT or 2-clause BSD anymore; MIT/X11 seems to imply that. I agree. MIT/X would be ok, as in the MIT version of the X system license ugh. MIT is better (and shorter). -- regards, Massa
nmap licensing claims
Hello! First of all, I would like to ask you to Cc: me to replies, as I am not subscribed to the list. Thanks in advance! Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim made by nmap developers [1]: in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. IANAL, but I see two issues with this. First, nmap is distributed under the GPL. Section 4 of the GPL sates [2]: 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. My understanding of that is that you're only allowed to use this program as long as you comply with the GPL, which does not limit its distribution or usage on certain platforms. Any such addendum would be a new licence. By browsing the GPL FAQ, I came across two sections, which, in short, state that if you change the GPL, you must not use the name GPL [3] and that you are not allowed to distribute a program under a different licence than GPL, but have all modifications be GPL [4]. I am not sure if adding that claim means you've changed the GPL. If it doesn't, then what I've said above is irrelevant and should be ignored. :-) The second problem is one that concerns Debian, namely, the DFSGiness of that. It is, to me, clear, that it is not DFSG [5], since it violates 5 poits. 1) Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. 5) No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. 6) No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. 8) License Must Not Be Specific to Debian The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. 9) License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. Now, my questions for you are: 1) Is nmap's licence GPL, or by adding that mention, they created a new licence? 2) Is nmap DFSG compliant, and can be distributed in Debian? 3) Was I on crack when reading the above? [1] - http://www.insecure.org/stf/Nmap-3.50-Release.html [2] - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [3] - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL [4] - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseNotOriginal [5] - http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines -- Birzan George Violence is the last refuge of Cristian the incompetent -- Salvor Hardin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Experience with convincing people to DFSGize their licenses?
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden Robinson: I think we need to start saying just MIT or MIT/old X11; we can't really say MIT/X11 any more. Eh? Why can't we? What's the new MIT/X11 license? I think he meant X11 (the new, problematic one) does not equals MIT or XFree86 != X11 -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nmap licensing claims
Birzan George Cristian wrote: Now, my questions for you are: 1) Is nmap's licence GPL, or by adding that mention, they created a new licence? One: nmap's license is GPL. the mention you talked about is just a warning to SCO that, having violated the GPL, their license is terminated, in accordance 2) Is nmap DFSG compliant, and can be distributed in Debian? Two: see One above. 3) Was I on crack when reading the above? Three: it seems so. :-) In Fyodor's opinion, SCO violated some (yet unknown?) terms of the GPL license in his works (nmap). He is telling them their license is therefore void. As to especulate where SCO violated Fyodor's rights, it's possible that the language at the second half of section 5 explains it: Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. But, as SCO stated in *official court documents*, they do not accept the GPL as a valid license; therefore, they cannot distribute nmap.
Re: Experience with convincing people to DFSGize their licenses?
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think he meant X11 (the new, problematic one) does not equals MIT or 2-clause BSD anymore; MIT/X11 seems to imply that. I agree. MIT/X would be ok, as in the MIT version of the X system license ugh. MIT is better (and shorter). I would be leery of calling it the MIT license, since MIT has other licenses that aren't quite the same. For example, the MIT Kerberos license, copied below: Copyright (C) 1985-2004 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Export of this software from the United States of America may require a specific license from the United States Government. It is the responsibility of any person or organization contemplating export to obtain such a license before exporting. WITHIN THAT CONSTRAINT, permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name of M.I.T. not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. Furthermore if you modify this software you must label your software as modified software and not distribute it in such a fashion that it might be confused with the original MIT software. M.I.T. makes no representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided as is without express or implied warranty. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Note the label your software as modified software bit which are not part of what people mean when they say MIT/X license. Note also the confusing without fee bit, which is intended to be read as you will not be charged any fee for using, copying, modifying, and distributing this software rather than you may not charge a fee for this software, but which is an endless source of confusion. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Mozilla Firefox's icon and trademark
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:26:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We consider the former to be DFSG-free and the latter to be non-free (and require explicit permission to do the latter from the copyright holder). That's all there is to it. I can't imagine why Mozilla would want to forbid this, other than a total lack of comprehension of the difference between trademarks and copyrights. I can -- they're currently very concerned about unstable or poorly modified code being shipped as Firefox or Mozilla branded software. Debian *will* modify the Mozilla or Firefox products slightly to ship them -- introducing better FHS compliance, for example, and probably a few other things: Different bookmarks, different home page, maybe different text in some places and maybe different code. These may impact the stability or user experience of the product, so they're concerned about us using their protected marks. As a consequence of the above, even if we did have a copyright license to modify the icon or the bitmap of the text Firefox, we wouldn't have a trademark license to use the word 'Firefox' to describe our modified product. Did you even read what I wrote? Why does it help to prohibit me from taking the firefox logo, replacing the fox part with a cow, and using it as the logo for something else entirely? How could this possibly be relevant? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nmap licensing claims
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:11:40PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: In Fyodor's opinion, SCO violated some (yet unknown?) terms of the GPL Yet unknown? Isn't this the same thing SCO is doing, spreading FUD about how Linux violated their IP? license in his works (nmap). He is telling them their license is therefore void. As to especulate where SCO violated Fyodor's rights, it's possible that the language at the second half of section 5 explains it: Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. But, as SCO stated in *official court documents*, they do not accept the GPL as a valid license; therefore, they cannot distribute nmap. One: nmap's license is GPL. the mention you talked about is just a warning to SCO that, having violated the GPL, their license is terminated, in accordance Hm. Fair enough, I guess. -- Birzan George Violence is the last refuge of Cristian the incompetent -- Salvor Hardin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Experience with convincing people to DFSGize their licenses?
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:54:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:16:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 06:14:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Mar 3, 2004, at 17:24, Matthias Urlichs wrote: The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend for (mostly-)non-program files? Depending on what they want, either the 2-clause BSD/MIT X11 (nearly the same) or the GPL. [ The 2-clause BSD is the one without the advertising clause ] I think we need to start saying just MIT or MIT/old X11; we can't really say MIT/X11 any more. Eh? Why can't we? What's the new MIT/X11 license? If we keep saying the MIT/X11 license is okay then some fuckhead will use the X-Oz license. Same problem that we have with the BSD licenses. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Experience with convincing people to DFSGize their licenses?
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we keep saying the MIT/X11 license is okay then some fuckhead will use the X-Oz license. Same problem that we have with the BSD licenses. Wouldn't it be nice to not call people fuckheads just because their choice of license doesn't please you? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experience with convincing people to DFSGize their licenses?
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 08:00, Andrew Suffield wrote: If we keep saying the MIT/X11 license is okay then some fuckhead will use the X-Oz license. It's like ... too subtle. You know? zen
Re: Mozilla Firefox's icon and trademark
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:26:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We consider the former to be DFSG-free and the latter to be non-free (and require explicit permission to do the latter from the copyright holder). That's all there is to it. I can't imagine why Mozilla would want to forbid this, other than a total lack of comprehension of the difference between trademarks and copyrights. I can -- they're currently very concerned about unstable or poorly modified code being shipped as Firefox or Mozilla branded software. Debian *will* modify the Mozilla or Firefox products slightly to ship them -- introducing better FHS compliance, for example, and probably a few other things: Different bookmarks, different home page, maybe different text in some places and maybe different code. These may impact the stability or user experience of the product, so they're concerned about us using their protected marks. As a consequence of the above, even if we did have a copyright license to modify the icon or the bitmap of the text Firefox, we wouldn't have a trademark license to use the word 'Firefox' to describe our modified product. Did you even read what I wrote? Why does it help to prohibit me from taking the firefox logo, replacing the fox part with a cow, and using it as the logo for something else entirely? How could this possibly be relevant? I did, but this last reply makes no sense to me. I mean, you're right -- assuming a Firemoo logo isn't confusingly similar to the Firefox logo, there is no reason to prevent doing that. But I don't understand why you're saying that. As far as I know, this is a conversation about the trademark license and the packaging of Mozilla and Firefox. You brought up that there's also a copyright issue a few messages back; my response was meant to say that even if the copyright issue gets resolved -- explaining the distinction between copyright and trademark and convincing the Mozilla folks to apply the NPL/MPL/GPL copyright license to the logo, and convincing them that they won't have trouble from stupid or careless people not understanding the distinction -- we'd still have to resolve the trademark issue. As it is, Debian's on shaky or at least impolite ground by distributing a package called mozilla which isn't a pristine Mozilla build. But if the trademark license is revised such that minor modifications are OK, then it'll be easy to get the Mozilla foundation to move the Mozilla and Firefox logos to a Free copyright license, because there'll be a clear reason to do so. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subversion in main?
Subversion has some clauses in its license that seemed very questionable to me. Here they are for your convenience: 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by CollabNet (http://www.Collab.Net/). Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. 4. The hosted project names must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am probably just paranoid, but I wanted to know if these are acceptable. BTW, I am not on the mailing list, so please CC replies. Thanks, wt -- Warren Turkal President, GOLUM, Inc. http://www.golum.org
Re: Mozilla Firefox's icon and trademark
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:01:42PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:26:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: As a consequence of the above, even if we did have a copyright license to modify the icon or the bitmap of the text Firefox, we wouldn't have a trademark license to use the word 'Firefox' to describe our modified product. Did you even read what I wrote? Why does it help to prohibit me from taking the firefox logo, replacing the fox part with a cow, and using it as the logo for something else entirely? How could this possibly be relevant? I did, but this last reply makes no sense to me. I mean, you're right -- assuming a Firemoo logo isn't confusingly similar to the Firefox logo, there is no reason to prevent doing that. But I don't understand why you're saying that. As far as I know, this is a conversation about the trademark license and the packaging of Mozilla and Firefox. You brought up that there's No, it's about the Mozilla people trying to use a copyright licence to control trademark rights, which doesn't work and is counter-productive. The initial message in this thread[1] may be instructive. also a copyright issue a few messages back; my response was meant to say that even if the copyright issue gets resolved -- explaining the distinction between copyright and trademark and convincing the Mozilla folks to apply the NPL/MPL/GPL copyright license to the logo, and convincing them that they won't have trouble from stupid or careless people not understanding the distinction -- we'd still have to resolve the trademark issue. Yes, and which can be resolved a number of ways, none of which were discussed in the slightest by the message which triggered this thread[1]. As it is, Debian's on shaky or at least impolite ground by distributing a package called mozilla which isn't a pristine Mozilla build. I would expect that pretty much every other Linux distribution would be in a similar position, though. It's very rare, IME, for a distro to provide a pristine upstream for any major package. I think that Mozilla's paranoia is misplaced. All distributors of Mozilla want to provide the very best for their users. No distro is going to shoot itself in the foot by breaking any software package. About all a distributor can do is add features, which may not be available in the pristine version, but I'd consider that a motivation for Mozilla to keep up to date with users' needs. But if the trademark license is revised such that minor modifications are OK, then it'll be easy to get the Mozilla foundation to move the Mozilla and Firefox logos to a Free copyright license, because there'll be a clear reason to do so. Classifying minor vs non-minor is a super-being task. It's all shades. A better way would be to require that all modified versions of the software are clearly identified as being non-official - requiring a modification to the version number, for instance. Logos aren't a huge issue, because what you're trying to avoid is *product* confusion, not brand confusion. - Matt [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200403/msg00276.html
Re: nmap licensing claims
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:05:43PM +0200, Birzan George Cristian wrote: Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim made by nmap developers [1]: in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. IANAL, but I see two issues with this. First, nmap is distributed under the GPL. Section 4 of the GPL sates [2]: 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. My understanding of that is that you're only allowed to use this program as long as you comply with the GPL, which does not limit its distribution or usage on certain platforms. Any such addendum would be a new licence. 1) Your comment above is misleadingly imprecise. The GPL is not an end-user license; you do not need to accept it at all in order to *use* GPL software. 2) The above statement does not limit the distribution or usage of nmap on any particular platforms. It only limits its distribution *by certain parties* who they claim have violated the license. Anyone else still has permission to distribute nmap binaries compiled for SCO systems under the terms of the GPL, and anyone can use nmap on SCO systems, it's only SCO themselves who are prohibited from distributing. The nmap license still offers the same terms to everyone, they've just included a notice in the distribution that a particular party has failed to comply with those terms. Therefore, this is not an act of discrimination, as other parties who fail to comply with the terms of the GPL are also not allowed to distribute nmap, whether or not the nmap authors make a point of publically shaming those parties. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
