On 6/18/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're skipping the crucial point here. Under the publicly available > licenses/policies, we *cannot* call it Firefox. The MoFo is offering > us an agreement that allows us to use the mark. I think agreeing to > this is against the spirit of DFSG #8, and sets a bad precedent > (speaking of precedents, have we ever made such an agreement before to > use a trademark?).
I don't think so. Basically, as far as I know Debian hasn't coped yet with any of the foreseeable trademark problems, from Linux to MySQL. But as I think I have mentioned, the approach under discussion for the Mozilla trademarks is about the most free-software-friendly tactic I can imagine that still more or less preserves the legal forms. (Other people may have better imaginations than mine. :-) With that said, I definitely think that an actual IP lawyer with a specialty in trademark should review the "memorandum of trademark safety zone" in its final form in order to keep the risk of unintended consequences down to a low roar. If you are not unalterably opposed to a "trust but verify" stance towards MoFo and DFSG #8, perhaps you could ask Gervase what exactly is on offer at this point, and run it past SPI's counsel before making any commitments. Cheers, - Michael
