* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 04:27:51PM -0400, Mike Connor wrote: > > Sorry for dropping this a while back, we didn't have enough bandwidth to > > track this down... > > Understood; seems to be a common enough problem. :) > > > >>The key problem is that there is code, and a build switch, that > > >>explicitly handles the official branding/logos vs. the generic > > >>name/artwork, and the package maintainer has chosen to break this switch > > >>by making the unofficial side of the switch also label itself as > > >>Firefox. I don't understand the motivations here, since the changelog I > > >>saw isn't visible (packages.debian.org is still being weird) but the > > >>gist of it was "avoid using the official branding switch" which seems > > >>like one of those "makes it harder to undo" steps since people actually > > >>would have to change code instead of build options to not be bound by > > >>those terms. If users don't build with the official branding, its > > >>because they are not accepting the terms of using things bound up in > > >>trademark law. Doing things this way implies that only the artwork is > > >>part of the official branding, as opposed to the name as well. > > > >I had to break the switch, because I need to call it Firefox, but I > > >can't include the official graphics. > > > I've confirmed that this isn't acceptable usage of the trademark. If > > you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of the > > branding. > > If Eric's statement that the firefox logos are distributed under a non-free > copyright license remains accurate, then it seems that ultimately, the only > acceptable solution to Debian would unfortunately be to stop using the > firefox name altogether. So I'm hoping we can find a middle ground > somewhere.
Take at other-licenses/branding/firefox/LICENSE in current CVS: http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/other-licenses/branding/firefox/LICENSE. That appears to be the only license associated with the logo and it pretty clearly DFSG-nonfree. At the time, I asked Gervase Markham as well if this was both a trademark license and a copyright license and he said it was. > > >>Why can't you just use the official branding switch, anyway? > > > >Because it uses graphics which have a non-free copyright license. > > > This is not something where you are free to pick what parts you want to > > use. Either use the trademarked logos and name together or don't. The > > name is trademarked in the exact same way as the logo, so I fail to see > > how you can argue that one is acceptable to use and the other is not. > > Maybe there's a technicality, but the name is just as free as the logos... > > The distinction here is that the firefox name is just a name, covered only > by trademark law (not by copyright law), but a logo is a work of art, > covered both by copyright law and trademark law. Applying trademark-*like* > restrictions on a work of art in its copyright license prevents our users > from doing things with that work that they are allowed to do with other free > artwork, *and* which are permitted under trademark law. For instance, a > trademark is limited to a field of endeavour, so using the logo in an > unrelated field is permitted by trademark law but not permitted by the > copyright license; or, a logo may be used as a starting point for another > work of art which is a derivative *work* under copyright law, but is not a > derivative *mark* under trademark law. > > These are corner cases, but they are nevertheless important to Debian, as > we're committed to providing our users an operating system consisting > entirely of material that they have the right to modify, reuse, and > redistribute (trademarks not withstanding). Of course, we've had problems > living up to this even where our own trademarks are concerned, so Debian as > a whole is likely to be forgiving of logo licensing problems in the near > term, but the package maintainers don't *have* to avail themselves of such > leniency, and it's my understanding that Eric has already decided it's in > Debian's best interest to not ship the logos under a non-free copyright > license. > > Is the sticking point in all of this truly that the Mozilla Foundation finds > it unacceptable to ship a browser named firefox which uses the > non-trademarked logos, or is it that we've broken the configure option that > others are expected to use when getting the un-branded version? I.e., would > it be suitable if Debian updated its patch to add a separate "name but no > logos" configure option, leaving the original "no name, no logos" option > intact? If that is in fact the only issue I'd be more than happy to develop that patch. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
