On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:14:34 +0000, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Replace "the name of the package will have to be changed in all > as-yet-unreleased versions of Debian" with "permission to use the > trademarks will be withdrawn for all as-yet-unreleased versions of Debian". > > That should deal with the issue were MJ felt it was more like a contract > than a permissions grant.
With this change, I really think this is a well conceived legal cover for both Debian and the Mozilla Foundation. It recognizes that Debian has a QA and bug tracking process with the kind of continuity and transparency that allows the Foundation to take a gentle, hands-off approach. It doesn't bend DFSG #7 any more than is absolutely necessary to establish the Foundation's awareness of and reliance on Debian's care for the quality of the software being shipped under Mozilla trademarks. I do think that maintenance of a trademark on a software product necessarily bends DFSG #3 a little, but much less than the exception granted in DFSG #4 does. The proposed terms don't require Debian, or anyone else, to change the name when creating a derived work; they just create a "safe space" within which the Foundation gives its affirmative blessing to processes which Debian has statutory rights to follow anyway (IMO, IANAL). I think it would be appropriate to rely on that safe space a little, ship Firefox as mozilla-firefox*.deb with the Foundation's approval, and keep an eye on their relations with other packagers. If it looks like the Foundation is unreasonably withholding similar terms from packagers with similarly trustworthy processes, then DFSG #8 is being violated and Debian should disclaim such approval. (This may or may not involve changing package names, depending on what advice we can get on Coty standards and their international equivalent.) After all, pursuing someone for misappropriation of trademark is not that different from protesting a violation of "moral rights" of the author in a country which recognizes them -- and no license can waive those moral rights. So there are, in some jurisdictions, unavoidable asterisks on #3, and shipping any modified work of authorship relies on the implied consent of the author, which is an informal asterisk on #7. So long as the Foundation's policy is empirically about the facts of Debian's processes rather than special treatment for Debian qua Debian, I think DFSG #8 is being substantially honored. I hope I don't need to say that I have no relationship to the Mozilla Foundation other than as a happy user of Firefox and other Mozilla components on three platforms including Debian. I'd like to see the Mozilla Foundation's sincere efforts honored, with DFSG #4 as a yardstick for the permissible scale of compromise. I anticipate closer attention to trademark concerns by many upstreams, and this would make a good precedent for future dealings with, say, MySQL, RedHat, and the Apache Software Foundation. Besides, DIAMF is hard to type. Cheers, - Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
