* Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 6/17/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Exactly. If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our > > > users. > > > And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not > > > put us in a privileged position with respect to them: they have the legal > > > right to do everything that we want to do with or without permission. > > > > > > So let's accept the "arrangement" and move on. There is no DFSG problem > > > here even if we do accept the notion that the DFSG applies to trademarks. > > > > If we don't need the "arragement", why exactly would we accept it > > anyway? > > I wouldn't say "accept" it, I would say "acknowledge" the safety zone > offered unilaterally by the Mozilla Foundation, and as a courtesy to > them make some effort to stay comfortably within it while continuing > to ship under the Mozilla names. Their trademark policy is surely > less draconian than, say, Red Hat's, and we aren't going around > purging the RedHat Package Manager from Debian.
I think you're playing word games now. Even if this is a unilateral "gift" we still need to decide if we want it or not. > If the offer from six months ago still stands (which, to my > recollection and in my non-lawyer view, read like a unilateral "safety > zone" rather than a trademark license as such), that's extraordinarily > accommodating on MoFo's part. It's a square deal from people with a > pretty good reputation for square deals. They deserve better from > Debian than to have their flagship products obscured by a rename when > they haven't done anything nasty to anyone yet. What reputation are you referring to? Not that I necessarily disagree, but what are you basing that assessment on? > The FSF has, at best, completely failed to offer leadership with > respect to free software and trademarks, as the MySQL case and the Red > Hat / UnixCD mess have shown. I think it would be rather gratifying > if Debian could step in to fill the void. And it would be kind of > nice to have a workable modus vivendi to exhibit if and when the Linux > Mark Institute (or the OpenSSL team or the PHP folks or Red Hat or > MySQL) comes knocking. I do have to agree that guidance when it comes to trademark situations is sorely lacking. There doesn't seem to be that consistent a viewpoint with Debian either unfortunately. -- 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
