* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Eric Dorland wrote: > >severity 354622 important > >thanks > > > >* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > >>Hi Mike, > >> > >>On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:01:01PM -0500, Mike Connor wrote: > >> > >>>Package: firefox > >>>Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.1-2 > >>>Severity: serious > >>> > >>>Firefox (the name) is equally protected and controlled by the same > >>>trademark policy and legal requirements as the Firefox logo. You're > >>>free to use any other name for the browser bits, but calling the browser > >>>Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo > >>>and other artwork. > >>> > >>The trademark policy for firefox marks has been discussed repeatedly in > >>the > >>Debian community, and it is my understanding that the Mozilla Foundation > >>*has* extended a trademark license to Debian so long as changes we make to > >>the software remain within certain reasonable limits. Are you saying that > >>there's a problem with the packages which invalidates that license, or > >>that > >>the Mozilla Foundation is rescinding that license, or what? > >> > > > >Indeed, please see > >http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg00002.html. > > > To my knowledge, each patchset that deviates from what we ship should be > run by whoever is doing licensing approvals (this is in progress with > various distributions already). Its hard, if not impossible, to define > a set of guidelines that is crystal clear and doesn't need human > oversight. Novell and Red Hat already do this.
Did you read what Steve said? We've been give permission to use the Firefox trademark by the Mozilla Foundation, and it's there job to police whether we're using it as a "mark of quality" or what not. > The key problem is that there is code, and a build switch, that > explicitly handles the official branding/logos vs. the generic > name/artwork, and the package maintainer has chosen to break this switch > by making the unofficial side of the switch also label itself as > Firefox. I don't understand the motivations here, since the changelog I > saw isn't visible (packages.debian.org is still being weird) but the > gist of it was "avoid using the official branding switch" which seems > like one of those "makes it harder to undo" steps since people actually > would have to change code instead of build options to not be bound by > those terms. If users don't build with the official branding, its > because they are not accepting the terms of using things bound up in > trademark law. Doing things this way implies that only the artwork is > part of the official branding, as opposed to the name as well. I had to break the switch, because I need to call it Firefox, but I can't include the official graphics. > Why can't you just use the official branding switch, anyway? Because it uses graphics which have a non-free copyright license. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
