On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:33:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Well having transition packages would definitely be part of the plan, > > so that shouldn't be an issue. > > FWIW, I don't see any substantial difference between a package named > "firefox" that is a transition package, and one that contains the browser > software. If one is determined to infringe a trademark, why would the other > not?
The trademark infringement is when providing something that is called firefox but that is not quite firefox, but still calls itself firefox. Providing a transition package so that users are able to get what we want to provide them as an alternative to firefox is a different situation : it is providing something that is called firefox, that is empty and installs something else that is called iceweasel and calls itself iceweasel. Where is the trademark infringement ? I can still write "firefox is shit" and not infringe any trademark. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
