* Cesar Martinez Izquierdo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > El Martes 14 Junio 2005 18:54, Humberto Massa Guimarães escribió: > > > Firefox is free software, and DFSG-compliant: "The license may > > > require derived works to carry a different name or version number > > > from the original software." (Even if it is "a compromise"). > > > > But is non-rebranded Firefox *really* distributable by us under > > GPL#6, "no further restrictions"? It seems to me that if our users > > can't customize and compile and distribute Firefox under the terms > > of the GPL, we are passing along another restriction over those in > > the GPL. > > Yes, they can customize and compile and distribute Firefox, but they need to > pay attention to the trademark issues, as well as patent issues and any other > law that may apply in their country. > > > > > I think everything is clear enough. And I think it is quite > > > reasonable that an upstream author asks for a name change for a > > > modified version. Even for security fixes. There is lots of > > > modified versions of programs out there and the upstreams authors > > > are always suffering bug reports that doesn't concern the original > > > version. > > > > So, in this paragraph you are basically stating that we *should* > > rename firefox to save them from such burden. > > No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save our *direct* users from such > burden. A lot of people would get greatly confused with a different name for > Firefox, even if you don't think so. > > *Indirect* users such as derived distributions should check the licenses and > other trademark or patent issues before start distributing anything. It's > their task to check it. We can help them if we create Debian packages which > are easy to rename, but we shouldn't confuse the rest of the users just to > make this task easier to derived distributions.
We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we accept such a deal as a project? Does the DFSG allow us to? -- 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
