Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, I don't want to get too far into this conversation until we've > established whether you will need new names.
Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it? Alternatively, if the names are changed to firebird/tbird/mozzarella or anything else avoiding the MF trademarks, no extra licences are required. Describing the heritage in the description line will let users find the right debian package, while still being honest. If MF is really going to insist that it gets magic veto rights over the work of the debian maintainer and users, changing the name is the easiest solution. If MF want us to use the trademarks, make that solution easier by relaxing the policy enough to follow the DFSG. I think it's fine to insist on prominent marking of differences, but it's too severe to revoke permission based on random unspecified quality judgements. > Ideally, I want to get a > good understanding of the Debian position on trademarks in general, and > then go to Chris Beard and Mitchell Baker (with whom the trademark buck > stops) and see what they say. After they've agreed that nothing can be > done, if that's their view, then let's talk about alternative names. IIRC, both branden and myself tried to discuss trademarks with you and others from MF before. In my discussion, MF people just stopped answering emails. What new steps will MF take to reach consensus this time? Basically, can debian contributors expect any progress? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and maybe not of groups I know
