* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 18-Sep-06, at 5:20 PM, Eric Dorland wrote: > > >>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? > > > > At no time was any irrevocable and/or condition-free usage of the > trademark granted. Nor do I see anything about just using the name > and not the artwork. We have to actively manage and oversee use of > the mark to keep (just as Debian does via STPI). One of the last > things I see in the June thread was this quote:
I did not claim it was irrevocable or condition-free. I'm just making sure that you're aware of the current situation before proceeding. I should have pointed out this thread as well: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00503.html. This thread outlines the proposal that was eventually agreed to. Please see Gerv's comments here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00757.html to see where he agreed we did not have to use the logo. > "So I believe > my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have > the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their > marks. Now I originally said we shouldn't do this, but it does have > certain advantages. First of all, I think we can ignore the trademark > policy because it is only a policy, is not distributed with the > software (although having said that, that might change) and it is my > understanding that in most jurisdictions the trademark holder has to > police use of their trademark anyway." You're taking that strongly out of context. And it's not what was decided in the end. > In that light, you should consider this, as I previously said, notice > that your usage of the trademark is not permitted in this way, and we > are expecting a resolution. If your choice is to cease usage of the > trademark rather than bend the DFSG a little, that is your decision > to make. Is there no way that you could be convinced to split the license on the logo to have a DSFG-free copyright license and the same, restrictive trademark license. That would basically clear up the issue from our perspective and IMHO not weaken your ability to enforce your trademarks. If this isn't possible, could we at least get a stay of execution? Etch is going into deep freeze in less than a month. Would it be possible to resolve this after the release? > For what its worth, Gerv is not responsible at this time for > trademark permissions or approvals. As noted previously, since the > inception of the Mozilla Corporation, we have been handling trademark > policy and enforcement. We didn't follow through as well as we > should have (we only got through Novell and Red Hat's patchsets) but > we're starting to fix that. Because Gerv is not responsible anymore for the trademark permissions and approvals, that means any agreements reached with him are null and void? > >>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. > > >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. > > Use of the trademark is subject to the conditions we determine. As I > said, we have an immediate problem (your invalid "workaround") and a > larger issue (requirements for using the trademark, including patch > signoffs). If using the logos is simply unacceptable to Debian, then > the immediate problem is all that really matters. > > Even if using the trademark was going to be acceptable in conjunction > with different artwork (i.e. not our nightly/alpha branding) there is > still the matter of doing real trademark review. Even a fast pass on > the very very large diff reveals a number of changes that don't have > clear justifications, or indications that the "original" tree is very > out of date. If Debian wants to continue to use the mark, you will > need to provide patches for approval for any change you want to make > from stock source. Other Linux distributions do this already (SuSE/ > Red Hat and asssociated distros to date, others are in progress). > See the link to fedora CVS for an example of the patches we're > validating against. So this means any patch we wish to apply to the source must be signed off by Mozilla corporation before we can upload packages? What if this is a security update, do we need to wait for you before we can update the package? -- 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
