Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software > would carry the name firefox. There's no such thing as a firefox. [...]
Others have explained that the package doesn't do that and that there is such a thing as a firefox. > [...] When a user does "apt-get install firefox" > he is not saying "I want to install a firefox", but "I want to install > the browser with the name Firefox". Or are they saying "I want to install a web browser" in a similar to those people who order a coke when they are saying they want a cola? (Jumping threads: it's very rare that I get questioned about Pepsi if I forgetfully order a coke. I think mainly Wetherspoon pubs do that now.) > It is true that a purely functional indication cannot be affected by a > trademark. So if something cannot function without having part of it > named ``firefox'', then that would not be trademark infringement. The firefox transition package cannot function fully without its Package control field being labelled firefox and a /usr/bin/firefox (IMO having that in iceweasel may be a bug in a couple of ways). > But > from what I have seen so far, the only reason the package is called > ``firefox'' is because people know Firefox better than Iceweasel. In > that case the name is used in the trademark sense. Two of my questions remain, as far as I can see: 1. That firefox transition package is not a web browser, so is the mark relevant or confusing? 2. No trade takes place with apt-get, so are any trademarks relevant? I can understand why one cannot sell as Firefox a thing containing the firefox transition package and iceweasel, but that seems similar to some other name-change and individual-selling restrictions. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
