* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Like others in this thread I disagree with your position. I don't > > > think you'd be compromising Debian's principles in doing this as > > > it's just about the name and it's purported to be easy to change the > > > name if downstream users do patch it. > > > If people want to rip out the guts of firefox then they have to > > > rename it. I see no problem here. Debian has proved it only wants > > > to do nice, fluffy things to firefox, Gervase is being accomodating > > > as far as I can tell. > > > Why do you want to make Debian the distribution that users moan > > > about shipping iceweasel when there is no reason not to just ship > > > firefox? Pragmatically yours, > > Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you > > don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozilla foundation is > > against DFSG #8? Why not? > > You have the right to modify the code whether or not it is in Debian. > > The license to the code is not specific to Debian so I don't believe > that this contradicts the spirit of DFSG #8. The rights are the same > for you as they are for users i.e. they have the right to go to Mozilla > and prove they produce good enough software to use Mozilla's trademark > and call it firefox just as you have. The license isn't specific to > Debian therefore this satisfies that clause.
The code license is not in question. The trademark license/policy is. > I honestly believe the above paragraph is consistent. Obviously there > are people out there who will argue that this clause means you can't > possibly do it as the name is different and Joe Random Hacker can't > somehow break firefox yet ignore the Mozilla Foundation and trade on > their good reputation by using their name. I think however that that is > a specious argument and that all sane users of firefox will be able to > negotiate as you have done or not bother and change the name. > > The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via Gervase in > this long running debate which he has continued to follow despite the > criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. Obviously if they > turn around in the future and say "oh we hate your blah patch you can't > use the name" then we can /then/ make it a big issue and change the name > to iceweasel and be happy. I honestly think this is unlikely though and > to do so now would be not only be premature but be harmful to users and > your/the project's relationship with Mozilla. Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our ca-certificates package. However I can't have Firefox use that as a root CA by default and still use the trademark: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.cacert/2752 This seems like a pretty unacceptable to me. -- 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
