* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 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.
What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages don't use any of the trademarked images and logos? > 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. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
