On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 06:51:51PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> So, in this paragraph you are basically stating that we *should* > >> rename firefox to save them from such burden. > > > > No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save our *direct* users > > from such burden. A lot of people would get greatly confused with a > > different name for Firefox, even if you don't think so. > > > > *Indirect* users such as derived distributions should check the > > licenses and other trademark or patent issues before start > > distributing anything. It's their task to check it. We can help them > > if we create Debian packages which are easy to rename, but we > > shouldn't confuse the rest of the users just to make this task > > easier to derived distributions. > > With this reasoning, firefox must go to non-free -- because everything > in main is guaranteed to be freely distributable by anyone, anywhere.
Doesn't follow. Everything in main is guaranteed to be freely distributable. Everything in main is guaranteed to be freely modifiable. A combination of the two is also guaranteed. However, that doesn't mean you don't have to check the license. For instance, some software requires you to provide source and/or a change log of your changes; other software does not. You will have to check this when you modify the software anyway; trade marks are no different. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
