On 6/27/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > "Presumably" isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they > > would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone, > > based on the "quality" criteria that is right now only known to the > > MoFo. > > How do you judge quality? Do you apply some basic filter, read a metric, > and say "this program scores 83% on the scale of good code"? > > Or do you have a look at how people write their code, what the result > is, and whether you think that result is a good thing? In other words, > do you make a judgement call?
As a general rule, the trademark holder is obliged to retain the authority to judge whether or not others are maintaining adequate quality controls. This authority is not without bounds (see Prestonettes v. Coty and other precedents I have cited), but delegating too many subjective judgment calls to the trademark user (whether or not he/she is a "licensee") risks loss of the trademark. It is apparently possible for a trademark holder to accept contractual limits on his/her/its authority to issue a product a failing grade; see the Sun v. Microsoft saga and the extent to which Sun may be obliged to pass a Java implementation that passes their Test Compatibility Kit. But a browser is not a JVM, and I don't think it's reasonable to ask the Mozilla folks to reduce their QA role to objective validation with a currently non-existent TCK. I hope that Eric or the DPL will decide to formally "acknowledge" the safety zone offered to Debian by the Mozilla Foundation rather than profess to "ignore" the trademark policy. A policy that one is "ignoring" can't be held up to other trademark holders as a modus vivendi; and in any case I think the Foundation deserves better from Debian than that. I do find it encouraging that Eric has invited the DPL to weigh in. I hope that Branden finds the time to consult with competent counsel (which I am not) and to propose a solution that garners enough developer support to be a model for our relationship with other trademark holders. Cheers, - Michael (IANADD, IANAL, TINLA) P. S. The Mozilla Foundation doesn't seem to object to "MoFo", and may even have originated the term. But I can certainly see how it could lead to misunderstandings. :)
