On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:36:49PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > In the event that an over-enthusiastic mark holder tries to tell Debian that > their nominative use of a trademark (in a package name, file name, etc.) is > infringing, the appropriate course of action for Debian to take is to > *reject these claims*, and continue using the mark. Not to buckle under > pressure and set a bad precedent for other mark holders to follow; not to > rename the software and cause confusion for our users. When we know we're > on the right side of the law, we should be resolute in our defense of our > rights. It shouldn't become a game where we pick and choose which names we > will and won't allow into the distribution based on how friendly the > trademark holder is.
I think I understand your point of view, and I really appreciate your moderation here as I like to be moderated myself when possible. I have an additional question here: is this position really the best to protect our downstreams? What will we do if Canonical get "over-enthusiastic" against a Debian derivative that is e.g. not Ubuntu-based? I agree that the question may be completely artificial at this point, but I think that ensuring that there is no legal threat over Debian derivative (neither now nor in the future) is a neat goal for our ecosystem. Note that this is a real question, I have no answer myself :) Bye, Mt. -- Les coups et les douleurs, ca se discute pas. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131110085332.gg13...@alphonse.loria.fr
