On 18-Sep-06, at 5:20 PM, Eric Dorland wrote:
This is us attempting to tell you that what you are doing is not
correct
and needs to change. We also need to go over the rest of the
patchset,
but this is the most glaring issue that must be fixed. This came
back
up again when people realized Ubuntu has the same change, and
because of
the way in which you did this, anyone shipping a derivative of Debian
will get the trademarked name even when not building with official
branding off. To repeat, this is not acceptable, and we need to work
together to find an appropriate solution.
I don't think I initially realized that you were representing
Mozilla. Before we proceed, are you aware of the discussion held on
the debian-devel mailing list starting here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01160.html,
particularly Gervase's proposals. Also see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg00002.html.
Have you spoken to Gervase about this?
At no time was any irrevocable and/or condition-free usage of the
trademark granted. Nor do I see anything about just using the name
and not the artwork. We have to actively manage and oversee use of
the mark to keep (just as Debian does via STPI). One of the last
things I see in the June thread was this quote:
"So I believe
my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have
the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their
marks. Now I originally said we shouldn't do this, but it does have
certain advantages. First of all, I think we can ignore the trademark
policy because it is only a policy, is not distributed with the
software (although having said that, that might change) and it is my
understanding that in most jurisdictions the trademark holder has to
police use of their trademark anyway."
In that light, you should consider this, as I previously said, notice
that your usage of the trademark is not permitted in this way, and we
are expecting a resolution. If your choice is to cease usage of the
trademark rather than bend the DFSG a little, that is your decision
to make.
For what its worth, Gerv is not responsible at this time for
trademark permissions or approvals. As noted previously, since the
inception of the Mozilla Corporation, we have been handling trademark
policy and enforcement. We didn't follow through as well as we
should have (we only got through Novell and Red Hat's patchsets) but
we're starting to fix that.
I've confirmed that this isn't acceptable usage of the trademark. If
you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest
of the
branding.
This isn't possible, your branding has a non-DFSG free copyright
license.
My understanding is that while images are copyrightable, names are
not. So even when we accept your trademark grant, we can't accept the
copyright license on the logo.
Use of the trademark is subject to the conditions we determine. As I
said, we have an immediate problem (your invalid "workaround") and a
larger issue (requirements for using the trademark, including patch
signoffs). If using the logos is simply unacceptable to Debian, then
the immediate problem is all that really matters.
Even if using the trademark was going to be acceptable in conjunction
with different artwork (i.e. not our nightly/alpha branding) there is
still the matter of doing real trademark review. Even a fast pass on
the very very large diff reveals a number of changes that don't have
clear justifications, or indications that the "original" tree is very
out of date. If Debian wants to continue to use the mark, you will
need to provide patches for approval for any change you want to make
from stock source. Other Linux distributions do this already (SuSE/
Red Hat and asssociated distros to date, others are in progress).
See the link to fedora CVS for an example of the patches we're
validating against.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
