* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:33:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Well having transition packages would definitely be part of the plan, > > > so that shouldn't be an issue. > > > > FWIW, I don't see any substantial difference between a package named > > "firefox" that is a transition package, and one that contains the browser > > software. If one is determined to infringe a trademark, why would the other > > not? > > The trademark infringement is when providing something that is called firefox > but that is not quite firefox, but still calls itself firefox. > Providing a transition package so that users are able to get what we want to > provide them as an alternative to firefox is a different situation : it is > providing something that is called firefox, that is empty and installs > something else that is called iceweasel and calls itself iceweasel. Where is > the trademark infringement ? I can still write "firefox is shit" and not > infringe any trademark.
Exactly. If the package is called firefox then it can be perceived as claiming it is firefox. If we provide an empty package called firefox to ease the upgrade to iceweasel or what have you, it just looks like we're providing an upgrade path from firefox to the new package. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
