> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change > >>every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified > >>version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the > >>extent names have been incorporated into functional parts of the work, > >>*which includes a requirement to change an image, as well as doing a > >>global s/Mozilla/other/g*, I do not consider it Free to require them to > >>be changed, and I do not believe it is covered under DFSG4.
> Raul Miller wrote: > > What does this have to do with trademarks? On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:07:43PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > This entire discussion concerns the interaction of trademarks with the > DFSG. Indeed. [That's why I asked.] > This particular argument was regarding what restrictions I > believe to be acceptable under DFSG4 and what unacceptable; the exact > mechanism used to enforce those restrictions is not really relevant. Uh... ok. I don't see the relevance, but I'll accept that you do. > >>(Personally, this argument is further strengthening my opinion that > >>DFSG4 has little redeeming value, and that we would be better served by > > > > I'll grant you that it's possible to rewrite the DFSG such that any > > software which mentions any trademark would be "non-free". > > > > Perhaps, by extension, this could also extend to all software in any > > countries which have trademark laws because the software doesn't grant > > rights to the trademarks of that country. > > This is not at all what I meant, nor do I think that is a good idea. I think that something of that nature is exactly what would be achieved by eliminating DFSG4 from the social contract. -- Raul
