On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:15:29PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > > Actually, I think there were two problems with firefox: the logo issue > (that was solved by changing the icon), and the use of the Firefox > trademark, which required anyone who wanted to use the name "firefox" > to use only "official" binaries built by Mozilla. This second issue > originately seemed similar to the Xen case.
Having followed the situation closely, I can say that the latter was mostly an excuse. Just look at the package in Ubuntu. They make all the changes they need, and they are able to provide security support. The big difference is they keep the non-free logo. > As this practice is explicitly allowed by DFSG #4, I don't think any > longer that there is an issue here. > > [...] > > The DFSG-freeness of the code was never in question, it's an issue if > Debian is allowed to use the name "Xen", which we seem to be allowed. > According to DFSG #4, we do not require total freedom for the _name_ of > the program for anyone to whom we distribute the code. Great. So this bug can be closed? -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
