* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Sorry for dropping this a while back, we didn't have enough bandwidth to > track this down... > > Eric Dorland wrote: > >> > >>To my knowledge, each patchset that deviates from what we ship should be > >>run by whoever is doing licensing approvals (this is in progress with > >>various distributions already). Its hard, if not impossible, to define > >>a set of guidelines that is crystal clear and doesn't need human > >>oversight. Novell and Red Hat already do this. > >> > > > >Did you read what Steve said? We've been give permission to use the > >Firefox trademark by the Mozilla Foundation, and it's there job to > >police whether we're using it as a "mark of quality" or what not. > > > > Since its inception (September 2005), Mozilla Corporation has been > handling approvals. The way this works (and the way Red Hat and Novell > have already gone through the process for 1.0 and 1.5) is that you have > to submit patches that deviate from the source tarballs in order to > continue to use the trademark. > > This is us attempting to tell you that what you are doing is not correct > and needs to change. We also need to go over the rest of the patchset, > but this is the most glaring issue that must be fixed. This came back > up again when people realized Ubuntu has the same change, and because of > the way in which you did this, anyone shipping a derivative of Debian > will get the trademarked name even when not building with official > branding off. To repeat, this is not acceptable, and we need to work > together to find an appropriate solution.
I don't think I initially realized that you were representing Mozilla. Before we proceed, are you aware of the discussion held on the debian-devel mailing list starting here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01160.html, particularly Gervase's proposals. Also see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg00002.html. Have you spoken to Gervase about this? > >>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. This isn't possible, your branding has a non-DFSG free copyright license. > >>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... My understanding is that while images are copyrightable, names are not. So even when we accept your trademark grant, we can't accept the copyright license on the logo. -- 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
