Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 10:55:38PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > (b) The method is what must be analyzed, not the end result. As a > trivial example, take the end result of having Microsoft Windows > installed on a PC. A legal contraption to do that would be to go to > your local computer store and buy a copy. An illegal contraption to > do that would be Kazaa. > > As an example, I think distributing a package which downloaded FOO > source code and compiles it --- on the user's machine --- with OpenSSL > might be fine, as we'd be distributing under GPL 2 (or even GPL 1), and > GPL 2 doesn't require source to all modules contained in the program > (only to the program and works based on it, which OpenSSL clearly > isn't). The GPL requires that all derived works be entirely available under the terms of the GPL. One piece of the resulting binary--OpenSSL--is not. This seems to clearly violate the spirit of the GPL. I don't know if the actual mechanism here is infringing. This is really just a case of the "distribute only source code, avoiding disributing binaries, to circumvent some of the GPL's requirements" "loophole", which we've discussed here several times, I think. I have no idea how this would fare in court, but I hope we agree that this would not be an acceptable thing for Debian to do. (I don't know if by "fine" you mean "legally fine" or "actually fine".) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:38:30PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > But it'll link against lubcurl-ssl, which we also put on the user's > machine. It doesn't matter how complicated the contraption for > getting some program with libcurl-ssl and openssl into a shared memory > space on an end user's machine is -- it's still a contraption for > distributing that final work. (a) Being in the same shared memory space is not a sane criterion for being a module contained in a program. For example, _everything_ runs in a shared address space on, e.g., Mac OS 9.x and earlier. The same applies to various embedded platforms (does it apply to uClinux, I wonder?) I propose that a requisite of BAR being a module contained in FOO is that FOO in some way use BAR. If we use this test, it has been stated that in this particular case the program does not ever make use of OpenSSL. Thus FOO in no way uses BAR. (b) The method is what must be analyzed, not the end result. As a trivial example, take the end result of having Microsoft Windows installed on a PC. A legal contraption to do that would be to go to your local computer store and buy a copy. An illegal contraption to do that would be Kazaa. As an example, I think distributing a package which downloaded FOO source code and compiles it --- on the user's machine --- with OpenSSL might be fine, as we'd be distributing under GPL 2 (or even GPL 1), and GPL 2 doesn't require source to all modules contained in the program (only to the program and works based on it, which OpenSSL clearly isn't).
Re: cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:37:35AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:12:54PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > > > >>On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > >> > >>>[1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2 > >>> > >>>(Accusing Free Software programmers of "perverting" the license by doing > >>>things they were clearly granted permission to do; that's wonderful.) > >> > >>Wasn't the force behind the license "re-interpreation" to stop people from > >>distributing Pine with a maildir patch? > > > > Like cdrecord with a dvdrecord patch, and yaboot with anything but pristing > > upstream source ? Altough at lest in the yaboot case, it is not licencing > > that > > is used, but threat to remove the debian yaboot mention from the official > > yaboot > > web page of supported yaboto versions. > > That's interesting; could you point me towards a reference for this? I > can't seem to find one via Google. (Or was it in private mail?) It was in the now archived bug against yaboot : http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=242348 Me : | > BTW, i also have a patch which adds amiga partitioning support to | > yaboot, would you consider including it ? Ethan : | not in 1.x. | | if debian starts patching yaboot severely i will add debian to the | unsupported dists category. The code is one which couldn't have any effect on existing plateforms using yaboot, since there is only one interaction, which is the probing for an amiga partition table, which happens only if no MBR or Mac partition tables or iso filesystems were found. As a result, i cannot get a yaboot version which works on my pegasos into debian, and need to resort to a local built package. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Free Art License
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:31:40 -0400, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: (...) > > > 4. Your Author's Rights > > > > > > The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your > > > contribution. By choosing to contribute to the evolution of this work of > > > art, you only agree to give to others the same rights with regard to > > > your contribution as those which were granted to you by this license. > > > > This is starting to tie into one oddity with the license: when you > > distribute a modified version, you are not actually licensing your > > modifications under this license, although you are granting all the > > _rights_ in the license; as stated in clause 7, all licenses come from > > the original author. > > (I'm not sure what "rights" means with respect to copyright law; I'm > assuming it means "permissions" here, even though that's not what it means > to me, since nothing else seems to make sense.) > > This doesn't make sense. In granting rights (permission) to do something, > you're granting a license to do it. I think "author's rights" refers to something also called "moral rights" (droit moral). Author's rights is somewhat unimplemented in US copyright law but present French law, which is the choice of law for this license. They are basically inalienable rights of an author not to be misrepresented or have his expression through the licensed work distorted with respect to the licensed work. A quick Google produced this, which presents a view on author's rights with regard to US copyright law: http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm -- Patrick
Re: Debian and Mozilla Trademarks
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:18:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:55PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote: > > > >>Are there any other examples of restrictions placed on open-source licenses > >>that Debian has had to deal with in the past? When a package is resricted > >>by trademark usage, does Debian have a policy to effectively deal with it? > > > > There's no difference between trademark law and anything else, and > > nothing special about copyright law. We are interested in what you can > > do with the work, for *whatever* legal reasons. It is significant that > > the DFSG does not talk about copyrights. > > Agreed entirely; unfortunately, this logic does not seem to be applied > in the case of the discussions of the license for the Debian logo. See > the "Free Debian logos?" thread. The Official Use logo is not, as far as I understand, intended to be DFSG-free at all, and is not intended to be used in main; I don't think this is considered a bug. The Open Use logo should be, but isn't; this is a bug, but I think it's an acknowledged one. I don't think many people are seriously advocating that the DFSG only applies to restrictions made under copyright law. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Debian and Mozilla Trademarks
Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:55PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote: > >>Are there any other examples of restrictions placed on open-source licenses >>that Debian has had to deal with in the past? When a package is resricted >>by trademark usage, does Debian have a policy to effectively deal with it? > > There's no difference between trademark law and anything else, and > nothing special about copyright law. We are interested in what you can > do with the work, for *whatever* legal reasons. It is significant that > the DFSG does not talk about copyrights. Agreed entirely; unfortunately, this logic does not seem to be applied in the case of the discussions of the license for the Debian logo. See the "Free Debian logos?" thread. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Free Art License
* Josh Triplett: >> 3. Incorporation of Artwork >> >> All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you >> are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) >> into another work which would not be subject to this license. > > This is a standard copyleft clause; no problems here. No, it's not standard copyleft a clause. It's not clear what "to integrate" means in the context of this license, and its not clear if this clause prohibits mere aggregation.
Re: Free Art License
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > The author or the artist of the initial work of art:
> > This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the
> > ramifications of this modified work of art.
These definitions belong in an art textbook, not a license ...
> > - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals
> > (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes,
> > give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same
> > conditions as the copies.
>
> This last condition does not specify what happens if subsequent
> recipients might not be able to access the original and subsequent
> originals.
I don't even know what "subsequent originals" means.
> > 3. Incorporation of Artwork
> >
> > All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you
> > are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents)
> > into another work which would not be subject to this license.
>
> This is a standard copyleft clause; no problems here.
I don't recall seeing this wording before, and there aren't that many
copyleft licenses in use, so I'm not sure I can agree that it's a
standard clause.
It's very poorly worded; the body of the "clause" is "All the elements
of this work of art must remain free", which is vague and meaningless.
The rest isn't written as a restriction at all, but as a strange conclusion
from the vague statement.
I'd say that while they're trying to copyleft, they don't have the legal
expertise required to do so clearly and enforcably.
> > 4. Your Author's Rights
> >
> > The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your
> > contribution. By choosing to contribute to the evolution of this work of
> > art, you only agree to give to others the same rights with regard to
> > your contribution as those which were granted to you by this license.
>
> This is starting to tie into one oddity with the license: when you
> distribute a modified version, you are not actually licensing your
> modifications under this license, although you are granting all the
> _rights_ in the license; as stated in clause 7, all licenses come from
> the original author.
(I'm not sure what "rights" means with respect to copyright law; I'm
assuming it means "permissions" here, even though that's not what it means
to me, since nothing else seems to make sense.)
This doesn't make sense. In granting rights (permission) to do something,
you're granting a license to do it.
> This is fine; versioned licenses are OK as long as the license doesn't
> force you to use any particular version, which this one doesn't.
Er, if it forces you to use a particular version, it's not really versioned.
("This license is versioned, but you must use version 1.2" is pointless.)
Forced license upgrades is non-free, of course.
--
Glenn Maynard
Re: cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation
Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:12:54PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > >>On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: >> >>>[1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2 >>> >>>(Accusing Free Software programmers of "perverting" the license by doing >>>things they were clearly granted permission to do; that's wonderful.) >> >>Wasn't the force behind the license "re-interpreation" to stop people from >>distributing Pine with a maildir patch? > > Like cdrecord with a dvdrecord patch, and yaboot with anything but pristing > upstream source ? Altough at lest in the yaboot case, it is not licencing that > is used, but threat to remove the debian yaboot mention from the official > yaboot > web page of supported yaboto versions. That's interesting; could you point me towards a reference for this? I can't seem to find one via Google. (Or was it in private mail?) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Free Art License
IMHO, looks like a free software, copyleft license. Any other thoughts out there? -Joe -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall http://pobox.com/~joehall/
Re: Free Art License
> Free Art license
> [ Copyleft Attitude ]
>
> version 1.2
>
> Preamble:
[snipped; no license terms]
> Definitions
>
> The work of art:
> A communal work which includes the initial oeuvre as well as all
> subsequent contributions (subsequent originals and copies). It is
> created at the initiative of the original artist who, by this license,
> defines the conditions according to which the contributions are made.
>
> The original work of art:
> This is the oeuvre created by the initiator of the communal work, of
> which copies will be modified by whosoever wishes.
>
> Subsequent works:
> These are the additions put forward by the artists who contribute to the
> formation of the work by taking advantage of the right to reproduction,
> distribution and modification that this license confers on them.
>
> The Original (the work's source or resource):
> A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of
> its program which the originator provides as the reference for all
> future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions.
>
> Copy:
> Any reproduction of an original as defined by this license.
>
> The author or the artist of the initial work of art:
> This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the
> ramifications of this modified work of art. By this license, the author
> determines the conditions under which these modifications are made.
>
> Contributor:
> Any person who contributes to the creation of the work of art. He is the
> author or the artist of an original art object resulting from the
> modification of a copy of the initial oeuvre or the modification of a
> copy of a subsequent work of art.
>
>
> 1. Aims
>
> The aim of this license is to define the conditions according to which
> you can use this work freely.
>
>
> 2. Extent Of The Usage
>
> This work of art is subject to copyright, and the author, by this
> license, specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute and
> modify it.
>
>
> 2.1 Freedom to Copy (or of Reproduction)
>
> You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for
> your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique
> you choose.
>
>
> 2.2 Freedom to Distribute, to Interpret (or of Representation)
>
> You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not,
> whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you
> observe all the following conditions:
> - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate
> precisely where the license can be found,
> - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
> - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals
> (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes,
> give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same
> conditions as the copies.
This last condition does not specify what happens if subsequent
recipients might not be able to access the original and subsequent
originals.
> 2.3 Freedom to Modify
>
> You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and
> subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out
> in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of the
> modified copy. The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you
> the right to modify the original under the same conditions as the copies.
OK, clause 2 appears to grant all the necessary freedoms. The sentences
about the "author of the original" and "the right to
{broadcast/distribute,modify} the original under the same conditions as
the copies" are rather confusing, but I believe that for electronic
works, they are essentially equivalent to "the author may or may not
incorporate your changes into the original version", which is fine.
For an actual physical piece of art (which probably does not directly
concern Debian, since it is not something Debian could package and
distribute), they would seem to make the original non-free in the sense
that one cannot modify it directly, but must make a copy first; all
subsequent copies would be free.
> 3. Incorporation of Artwork
>
> All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you
> are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents)
> into another work which would not be subject to this license.
This is a standard copyleft clause; no problems here.
> 4. Your Author's Rights
>
> The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your
> contribution. By choosing to contribute to the evolution of this work of
> art, you only agree to give to others the same rights with regard to
> your contribution as those which were granted to you by this license.
This is starting to tie into one oddity with the license: when you
distribute a modified version, you are not actually licensing your
modifications under this license, although you are granting all the
_rights_ in the licens
Re: Free Art License
Kai Blin wrote: > I'm writing to ask if the Free Art License would be considered Free by > the debian free software guidelines. > > The text of the license can be found at > http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html Here is the text of the license, for easy quoting and commentary. My comments will follow in another reply. - Josh Triplett Free Art license [ Copyleft Attitude ] version 1.2 Preamble: With this Free Art License, you are authorised to copy, distribute and freely transform the work of art while respecting the rights of the originator. Far from ignoring the author's rights, this license recognises them and protects them. It reformulates their principle while making it possible for the public to make creative use of the works of art. Whereas current literary and artistic property rights result in restriction of the public's access to works of art, the goal of the Free Art License is to encourage such access. The intention is to make work accessible and to authorise the use of its resources by the greatest number of people: to use it in order to increase its use, to create new conditions for creation in order to multiply the possibilities of creation, while respecting the originators in according them recognition and defending their moral rights. In fact, with the arrival of the digital age, the invention of the Internet and free software, a new approach to creation and production has made its appearance. It also encourages a continuation of the process of experimentation undertaken by many contemporary artists. Knowledge and creativity are resources which, to be true to themselves, must remain free, i.e. remain a fundamental search which is not directly related to a concrete application. Creating means discovering the unknown, means inventing a reality without any heed to realism. Thus, the object(ive) of art is not equivalent to the finished and defined art object. This is the basic aim of this Free Art License: to promote and protect artistic practice freed from the rules of the market economy. Definitions The work of art: A communal work which includes the initial oeuvre as well as all subsequent contributions (subsequent originals and copies). It is created at the initiative of the original artist who, by this license, defines the conditions according to which the contributions are made. The original work of art: This is the oeuvre created by the initiator of the communal work, of which copies will be modified by whosoever wishes. Subsequent works: These are the additions put forward by the artists who contribute to the formation of the work by taking advantage of the right to reproduction, distribution and modification that this license confers on them. The Original (the work's source or resource): A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of its program which the originator provides as the reference for all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. Copy: Any reproduction of an original as defined by this license. The author or the artist of the initial work of art: This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the ramifications of this modified work of art. By this license, the author determines the conditions under which these modifications are made. Contributor: Any person who contributes to the creation of the work of art. He is the author or the artist of an original art object resulting from the modification of a copy of the initial oeuvre or the modification of a copy of a subsequent work of art. 1. Aims The aim of this license is to define the conditions according to which you can use this work freely. 2. Extent Of The Usage This work of art is subject to copyright, and the author, by this license, specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute and modify it. 2.1 Freedom to Copy (or of Reproduction) You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. 2.2 Freedom to Distribute, to Interpret (or of Representation) You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions: - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found, - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals, - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies. 2.3 Freedom to Modify You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of the modified copy. The author of the origina
Free Art License
Hi folks, I'm writing to ask if the Free Art License would be considered Free by the debian free software guidelines. The text of the license can be found at http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html Cheers, Kai -- Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blingmx.net), WorldForge Project Web: http://www.worldforge.org/ I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean. -- G.K. Chesterton pgp9i8tgTHvrK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian and Mozilla Trademarks
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:55PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote: > Has anyone at Debian sought permission from the Mozilla Organization to use > the Mozilla trademarks in its packages? In your legal opinions, would it > make a substantive difference? To my knowledge, no one associated with the Mozilla trademark has had anything bad to say about anything anyone even vaugely associated with the Debian trademark has done with the browser nor plans to do with it. And, with trademarks, use which the trademark holder does not object to is OK -- at least that's the way U.S. law works, and I imagine we're talking about U.S. trademarks here. -- Raul
Re: Debian and Mozilla Trademarks
On 2004-09-09 06:30:55 +0100 Paul C. Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Has anyone at Debian sought permission from the Mozilla Organization to use the Mozilla trademarks in its packages? In your legal opinions, would it make a substantive difference? I feel that Debian uses MF's trademarks to honestly identify the goods as those of the Mozilla Foundation. Under English law, that seems to mean that we do not need permission to use the trademarks because this is not an infringing use (Trade Marks Act 1994, s10(6)). I suspect that international agreements mean the US has a similar situation, but I don't know that. I am not a lawyer, neither. Nathaneal Nerode disagrees with my interpretation, according to http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00279.html - he thinks it must be the official unmodified version. That probably is a restriction on modification. The Firefox icon may be a more obvious problem, but I don't remember its full license details. [...] When a package is resricted by trademark usage, does Debian have a policy to effectively deal with it? Trademark registrations are annoyingly peripheral to the package, like patents. With copyright, it is an property put in all software that we can't ignore. Trademarks can exist, but someone could have a licence covering everyone redistributing debian and we need not know about it. It is only when we discover a holder who successfully enforces trademarks that it becomes clear-cut. In the recent past, we've been pretty lucky that agressive trademark holders use non-free copyright licences too. Here's a fun idea: Trademarks are also limited by field of use. If I remember correctly, there are only live firefox US trademarks covering internet software, fire suppression systems and boats. I encourage everyone to search their local trademarks, then sell other firefox merchandise and promise to donate profits to the Mozilla Foundation when they issue blanket trademark licences to all free software. Of course, this is not legal advice: you get that from lawyers, not devious hackers. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Visit the AFFS stand, .org village LinuxExpoUK, 6-7 Oct
Re: Debian and Mozilla Trademarks
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:55PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote: > Are there any other examples of restrictions placed on open-source licenses > that Debian has had to deal with in the past? When a package is resricted > by trademark usage, does Debian have a policy to effectively deal with it? There's no difference between trademark law and anything else, and nothing special about copyright law. We are interested in what you can do with the work, for *whatever* legal reasons. It is significant that the DFSG does not talk about copyrights. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian and Mozilla Trademarks
Maybe I should know much about buld_deb packaging, but from what I can read from mozilla [0], dealing with logos and trademark are allowed if there is no change in the code. Building a .deb is a change of the code, or is just an adaptation best fitable for a different platform? In the former case debian could not violate the mozilla logos and trademark policies. In the letter if the redistribution is with no changes, then everybody are allowed to deal with. Waht in any case i find problematic, is that the mozilla pubblic license-sections trademark (I think we should start thinking as just one license) is probably not dfsg free becouse of what requires in dealing with logos and trademarks [1] [0] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html [1] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html on the middle of the page Tom --- "Paul C. Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Debian Legal Gurus: In February 2004, the issue was raised [1] on the debian-devel mailing list regarding the trademark issues surrounding the Mozilla Firefox browser (which, in actual fact, is not limited to just Firefox). A brief flury of messages followed, which didn't seem to actually address the issue that was originally raised. The Mozilla Organization tightly restricts the use of the Mozilla name and logos. My non-legal interpretation of their licensing page [2] is that it requires written permission to use Mozilla trademarks for any modified versions of their software. I believe all of the Mozilla packages in Debian would fall under this restriction. I've searched the mailing lists for any other references to this issue, but haven't found any further discussions. Technically, Debian is probably already using Mozilla trademarks. This is a murky area, in which copyright meets trademark, because most of these usages appear to be included with DFSG-free licensed source code. When Mozilla.org releases source code under open-source licenses, which includes trademarks it purports to restrict the use of, which takes precidence? Has anyone at Debian sought permission from the Mozilla Organization to use the Mozilla trademarks in its packages? In your legal opinions, would it make a substantive difference? Even if Debian had permission to use Mozilla trademarks in its packages, I doubt that the original issue of using the Mozilla Firefox icon could be adequately addressed. The icon itself would not be DFSG-free, therefore not suitable for inclusion in the Debian distribution. Are there any other examples of restrictions placed on open-source licenses that Debian has had to deal with in the past? When a package is resricted by trademark usage, does Debian have a policy to effectively deal with it? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg01877.html [2] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html Yours truly, Paul C. Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ <---o0o---> Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com :-))-: signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Debian and Mozilla Trademarks
Dear Debian Legal Gurus: In February 2004, the issue was raised [1] on the debian-devel mailing list regarding the trademark issues surrounding the Mozilla Firefox browser (which, in actual fact, is not limited to just Firefox). A brief flury of messages followed, which didn't seem to actually address the issue that was originally raised. The Mozilla Organization tightly restricts the use of the Mozilla name and logos. My non-legal interpretation of their licensing page [2] is that it requires written permission to use Mozilla trademarks for any modified versions of their software. I believe all of the Mozilla packages in Debian would fall under this restriction. I've searched the mailing lists for any other references to this issue, but haven't found any further discussions. Technically, Debian is probably already using Mozilla trademarks. This is a murky area, in which copyright meets trademark, because most of these usages appear to be included with DFSG-free licensed source code. When Mozilla.org releases source code under open-source licenses, which includes trademarks it purports to restrict the use of, which takes precidence? Has anyone at Debian sought permission from the Mozilla Organization to use the Mozilla trademarks in its packages? In your legal opinions, would it make a substantive difference? Even if Debian had permission to use Mozilla trademarks in its packages, I doubt that the original issue of using the Mozilla Firefox icon could be adequately addressed. The icon itself would not be DFSG-free, therefore not suitable for inclusion in the Debian distribution. Are there any other examples of restrictions placed on open-source licenses that Debian has had to deal with in the past? When a package is resricted by trademark usage, does Debian have a policy to effectively deal with it? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg01877.html [2] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html Yours truly, Paul C. Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
