On 6/17/05, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > > Alexander Sack writes: > > > >>In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product > >>name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it > >>is used in the help menu, the about box, the package-name and the window > >>title bar. > > > > I'm not convinced that any of these constitute trademark infringement. > > Then I'm slightly confused as to your concept of trademark infringement. > If I label the car I've built as a Ford (even if it uses a lot of Ford > parts), it infringes Ford's trademark. > > I haven't heard anyone else disputing that to ship a web browser called > "Firefox", Debian needs an arrangement with the owner of the trademark > "Firefox" as applied to web browsers.
Debian doesn't "need" such an arrangement, as I argued in a previous thread six months ago; there's the Coty v. Prestonettes standard and all that. But IMHO it would be advisable for both sides if such an arrangement were reached. I prefer the not-quite-a-trademark-license arrangement discussed in the thread ending at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00795.html . But then, I tend to take the "square deal" / "keep people's options open when that won't result in a tragedy of the commons" approach to freedom rather than the "natural right" approach. So I'm pro-GPL-as-construed-under-the-actual-law, pro-trademark-when-used-to-discourage-misrepresentation, and pro-real-world-legal-system generally. This may put me in a minority among debian-legal regulars. :-) Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, IANADD)
