Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 12:50 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit : > > I don't think it's arcane. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, > > which Debian itself has done in the past (TrustedDebian -> Adamantix) > > > > You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you > > either rename it to something else or get permission to call it firefox. > > Doesn't sound non-free to me. > > Please explain to me why it's alright to get special permission to use > a trademark but not ok for a software license?
Because our goal is to provide the best operating system with free software and because that special permission on the trademark changes nothing to that. In all cases we provide a software that is DFSG-free to our users. And we don't need more to be happy. :-) Cf my previous mail : http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01430.html Point #8 of DFSG was meant to avoid people creating license like this "You cannot redistribute the software except as a part of the Debian distribution" where the license is clearly not DFSG-free for entities outside of Debian and where the exception would make the software DFSG-free within Debian only. Your interpretation of the point #8 of DFSG is way too strict compared to the original pupose of that point. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
