On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need to > > look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take > > any package in main, modify it, and further redistribute it? If > > yes, then the package can remain in main, and is free; if not, > > then the package is not free. > > Our users have permission to modify it and further redistribute it > *as long as they change the name*. That's a limitation we're willing > to accept for ourselves - why should it not be free enough for our > users?
Unfortunatly, in the case of Firefox, we have to do much more than just change the name of the work/binary, which is really what DFSG §4 is getting at.[1] All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from the work, which is quite a bit different than merely chaging the name of the work. Don Armstrong 1: As I'm sure you're aware, it's primarily a nod to TeX et al. and a compromise so TeX could be distributed. 2: Extra bonus points to whoever figures out what this actually means. No credit if you consider less than 3 jurisdictions. -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
