Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this exception for software coming in, why can't we accept this same exception for software derived from our distribution? This is basically our position. I include below, for reference, an email I sent to Eric 24 hours ago in response to his request to settle this issue. It outlines a rough shape of an agreement which I hope we can reach. It might be beneficial though to have an agreement with MoFo that allows for downstreams of Debian to also use the name, as long as they only modify the package in ways similar to Debian. If you have a downstream that just copies, or copies-and-fixes-bugs, this would surely be just as acceptable to MoFo, right? I completely agree that Debian redistributors without modification (as in "here's a Debian CD") shouldn't be restricted. However, one of the reasons we are happy for Debian to have the great flexibility outlined below is that Debian has a great track record for producing quality software (eventually ;-P). J. Random Downstream-Developer may not have such a reputation, and so there is a greater risk that the marks cease to be seen as a "mark of quality" if we are too broad in our unconditional grant to your downstream. Having made that point, I think we could say that if the modifications _they_ made to the base Debian packages were within the Mozilla trademark policy, then there would be no need to ask us about it. I would say, though, that given the great ease with which one can rebrand Firefox (see below for evidence), which is probably easier than almost any other existing application of comparable size due to the Netscape heritage and their need to rebrand, I don't think that it would be significantly limiting downstream freedoms if we said they had to change the name (or ask us) for *all* modifications. After all, that's what some packages whose licenses have name-change clauses say. Gerv Previous email to Eric: Original Message Subject: Re: Firefox Trademark Issues Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:15:27 +0100 From: Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: mozilla.org To: Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Eric Dorland wrote: > Sarge is released, so the time is ripe to figure out what I'm going to > do. This issue has been dragging out like 6 months now, so lets hash > it out. OK. One thing I remember being a concern last time was the level of difficulty of rebranding Firefox. You may have noticed that the Firefox 1.1 preview release has been rebranded as Deer Park. The work went on in this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294399 There were a few false starts, but I think it's clear that fundamentally, rebranding Firefox is not a complicated or lengthy operation. Having said that, is it possible to come to an agreement along the following lines? - The Mozilla Foundation gives Debian permission to use the Firefox logo and brand name. - That permission is revocable, but not for shipped or frozen versions of Debian. - It's the Foundation's responsibility to make sure the Debian version meets our requirements; if we have issues, we sort them out with the maintainer in the first instance. - The requirements in question (or, probably, a set of principles or something like that) would be the result of a discussion between the Foundation and the maintainer. - The permission to ship copies of Debian's version extends to everyone. - The permission to ship modified versions of Debian's version does not extend to everyone; if they make changes, they have to rebrand or ask permission. This is analogous to the clause which is found in some BSD licences, stating that modified packages of software are required to have a different name. As noted above, this is not a difficult exercise. Can we make this fly? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Alexander Sack wrote: Is the brand name 'Firefox' or 'Mozilla Firefox'? I remember that this whole discussion started because we should remove the Mozilla prefix from the software and package name? That's not quite right. Removing the "Mozilla" prefix was one of the issues that came up in the discussion, but I don't think it was the first cause. Is this still true or are you granting us the right to use Mozilla Firefox/Mozilla Thunderbird/Mozilla Sunbird - that is, not modify the sources shipped by mozilla.org in this regard? I don't quite understand the second part of that question. I am anticipating that, if we come to an arrangement, Debian would be shipping something called "Firefox" rather than Mozilla Firefox in the UI; we reserve "Mozilla Firefox" for stuff we ship ourselves directly. Ideally, if we were starting from scratch, the packages would also be called "firefox" rather than "mozilla-firefox", but we'd probably be OK with not renaming them if the hassle of changing was great. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Alexander Sack wrote: Sadly, a good example that this is true to some extent, is that the MF apparently has no high priority to care about distributors, when it comes to security issues. AFAIK, we cannot get access to confidential security reports in order to prepare a fix in a timely manner. That's simply not true. Anyone distributing significant copies of Firefox can have a representative on the security group, which has access to all the confidential bugs. Just ask Dan Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In fact, Debian already has someone (Matt Zimmerman) on the list. The current list of members is here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/secgrouplist.html As you can see, it contains representatives of Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE and Debian. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: Using the logo is not possible, as it is not licensed under a free license. Yes, sorry - I'd forgotten. This agreement is not evil, but internally we have to work out whether we can make this sort of agreement under the DFSG. If you came back with something non-Debian specific and still gave us the ability to do the things we need to, then there probably wouldn't be any debate. The issue is that it has to be X-specific, where X is people we trust to make competent releases of software. And we have to judge X on who comes to us and says "we claim to be competent". So if there was a Debian clone doing exactly the same thing (call them Naibed), they would be able to get a similar sort of agreement. In that sense, what we are offering is not Debian-specific. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Alexander Sack wrote: I think, what some (or a certain amount of) project members complain about, is the absense of objective, written criteria. Those criteria should somehow define which criteria X has to satisfy in order to get judged competent. Such criteria are very hard to define. To show why, let me ask you a question: given a number of free software packages which do the same thing, how do you decide which one to use? On the web, how do you decide which online businesses you will buy goods from? Publishing a clear policy would be the single best chance to convince a good amount of them - my guess of course, nothing more. Nevertheless, maybe trying to work out a guideline might be sufficient too. I understand that this is no easy job, but maybe it helps. But how would such a guideline be worded? We can't say "we'd match this ticklist of criteria", because we may find that someone meets them and we still don't trust them to do a good job. We can't say "we'd consider this list of factors", because we might want to look at other factors as well. Judging from this, and from the assumption that we do not want to maintain and enforce a pool of trademarks on our own, I would say that it is our job to work out some criteria that a *good* free-software distributor should/can fulfill in order to do good to upstream (in terms that those distributors will honor and try their best not to harm upstreams trademark). Other projects could adapt those criteria as well and upstreams - like Mozilla - could publish those criteria as being suitable for determining the distributors competence ... what a perfect world ;). The problem with this is that every upstream will have a different view of what a distributor should or shouldn't do in order to keep using the trademark. For example, The Mozilla Foundation wouldn't let anyone use the trademark if they exposed their users to significant risk by unquestioningly adding root certificates to the store from anyone who requested such addition. However, a vendor of another product which didn't have a root cert store wouldn't consider this issue; yet another product might be using a completely different security mechanism with its own potential risky actions a distributor could take. So you would end up with statements like "doesn't put users at risk", which are so vague as to be useless. I think that instead, Debian has to come up with a policy, hopefully along the lines of the agreement I outlined originally, so you can say "we will use the trademarks of anyone who will do a deal with us like this - so it's easy to remove the marks, so they can't force us to remove them from frozen versions, so... etc.". But again, perhaps that won't happen for a while :-) Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Simon Huggins wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our ca-certificates package. However I can't have Firefox use that as a root CA by default and still use the trademark: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.cacert/2752 This seems like a pretty unacceptable to me. Hmm. That almost sets a precedent for stopping any changes they don't like via the blunt tool of the trademark license. I'd appreciate it if I was CCed on all parts of this discussion, as I'm not a member of debian-devel. Thanks to Simon for bringing me back in here. I'm sure you are aware of the significant risks to users associated with adding a root certificate to a browser store. However, having consulted carefully with my mozilla.org colleagues on this issue, it's not as black and white as I made out in the original post to the CACert list. Consequently, I would very much like to hear more about Debian's policy and procedures for vetting certificate authorities who wish to have their roots included in the Debian store. With regard to the "blunt tool", the point of a trademark licence is to exercise some control over what gets labelled "Firefox". If Debian were able to make arbitrary changes we didn't like and still use the trademark, there would be no licence! :-) And adding a new root cert is in an entirely different category to e.g. patching Firefox to put its profile somewhere which fits in with the Debian FHS. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks
John Hasler wrote: Alexander Sack writes: In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it is used in the help menu, the about box, the package-name and the window title bar. I'm not convinced that any of these constitute trademark infringement. Then I'm slightly confused as to your concept of trademark infringement. If I label the car I've built as a Ford (even if it uses a lot of Ford parts), it infringes Ford's trademark. I haven't heard anyone else disputing that to ship a web browser called "Firefox", Debian needs an arrangement with the owner of the trademark "Firefox" as applied to web browsers. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a license. That is correct, but (correct me if I'm wrong Gerv), but "change" would include such things as recompiling it. As I was saying earlier in the thread, what we'd probably do is say that they could make changes within the terms of the trademark policy - possibly the Community Edition rules, which allow for recompilation and limited change. We can certainly discuss the extent of such rights; what we can't agree to is giving them unlimited rights, or even rights as extensive as Debian's or Red Hat's or another trusted distributor's without them proving themselves worthy of such trust. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights that the user don't have. Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as "Debian" (or "official Debian", or whatever it is you guys use). :-) They do have concerns about the trustability of CAcert certs. I'm mostly convinced they're no worse than other CA's. What we have a problem with (in the context of including the cert in Firefox) is the fact that CAcert haven't been audited, so the risk of including them is unquantifiable. Please see the CAcert list for recent discussions on this topic. Eric Dorland wrote in another thread: > Will the add the SPI root CA to their root CA list? It's pretty Debian > specific, so I doubt it. There are two ways we could go about this. The first is for the MoFo to have a list of CAs who meet the CA policy[0] in all other ways except that they are too specific to go into the general Firefox build. These could then be included by any distributor at will. The difficulty with that is that currently we don't have time to evaluate the requests of all the CAs requesting general distribution, let alone ones we aren't going to include ourselves. The second is for Debian to show us their policy on how they decide whether a CA is trustworthy, and we say "yes, taking everything into account, that policy is OK with us" and then we let you guys get on with it. But to attempt this, I need to see the policy :-) Gerv [0] http://www.hecker.org/mozilla/ca-certificate-policy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: * Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as "Debian" (or "official Debian", or whatever it is you guys use). :-) When I said rights, I meant rights to the software in main. That's what Debian cares about. I should of been more clear. So it's OK for Debian to use trademarks to protect their free software brand, but not OK for those whose software is included in Debian? They do have concerns about the trustability of CAcert certs. I'm mostly convinced they're no worse than other CA's. What we have a problem with (in the context of including the cert in Firefox) is the fact that CAcert haven't been audited, so the risk of including them is unquantifiable. Please see the CAcert list for recent discussions on this topic. Can you please point me to the document where you went and verified that all your current CA's have been audited and met your CA policy? We haven't yet audited the current CAs; the decision was taken (given how long it took to develop the policy) to prioritise new CAs. Current CAs at least have the evidence of history to back up their trustworthiness. Here's another situation you might want to consider. What if Debian decided one of your CA's was not trustworthy and removed it? Would that be grounds for losing the trademark? That's a very different issue; we have considered it, of course. The answer would probably depend on how used the root was - i.e. how far removing it degraded the user experience - combined with the reasons for removal. But we haven't thought about this one as hard, because it hasn't come up in practice. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: The thread is petering out Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking at a conference in Wolverhampton. Some very smart developers have come forward to say that trademarks don't matter with respect to free software. I'd certainly disagree with that. I'd say they matter very much. I think free software should actively use trademarks for what they are designed for - a mark of quality. Firefox. There is also very little guidance in what would be acceptable trademark restrictions for a free software project. I hope there can still be some dialog within Debian and hopefully come up with some guidelines that developers can accept. That would be excellent. I hope that my suggestions for managing the Firefox trademark would be a starting point for those discussions. So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian. If you are not empowered, who is? If the DPL does not step forward to make some sort of agreement, what will I do? Renaming seems to be a very unpopular option. So I believe my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their marks. Would you adopt a similar attitude to copyright infringement? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Simon Huggins wrote: That's unfair. I would have summarised more as "there's no problem doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes". I don't want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change of code he has to run to Gervase and ask nicely. (note that's not quite what's happening here, rather it's the other way around - the code can be changed but if it's changed in a way that they don't like they could withdraw use of the mark) Mozilla however don't have any objective way of saying whether something is or isn't good quality and appear to want to micromanage these things. I don't think we want to micromanage - in fact, as your previous paragraph states, what we suggested was pretty hands-off. Gervase, perhaps you could come up with a better proposal that was objective and could be applied to all parties whilst not being overly onerous so that people meeting some specific guidelines for quality could use the trademarked name (oh and solve world peace, hunger and poverty at the same time, ta ;)). I believe Eric's asked for this in the past in this thread. Is it really such an impossible goal? I really think it is - at least, to the level that I think would be required. Could you define such a set of guidelines for Debian itself, to allow people to use the official Debian logos on modified versions of Debian? I've said in the past that I'd be happy to draw up a non-binding checklist of hot-buttons and so on, if that would help - to be worked out between the MoFo and Debian. That offer stands. Quality is not a checkbox matter. The control that trademark law requires we exercise over trademark usage (which is reduced to an absolute minimum in the suggested agreement) means we have to maintain quality, not maintain "does X, Y and Z but not Q". We say Debian has a reputation for shipping quality software, and we want them to use the trademark. I would hope you guys also want to use it, as a well-known free software brand. Why is our recognition of Debian's quality used as a negative against that happening? Anyone with a similar reputation (e.g. Ubuntu) can get a similar agreement. I think it's the uncertainty that scares people here - the fact that if we don't meet some target we can't see or argue against we might have the license to use the trademark removed suddenly. My proposal covered that concern - the Foundation would not have the power to withdraw the trademark from use in a frozen or shipping version of Debian. I imagine that the packages will be renamed iceweasel or whatever as soon as Mozilla make some unpopular decision but I don't see how that serves Debian or Mozilla particularly. Sadly the way this thread is going I can all too clearly see Mozilla making some silly ruling in the future which doesn't sit well with Debian :( What from this thread makes you think that the silliness will be on our side? I'm still under the impression, waiting to be corrected, that Debian's policy for including new root certs is "we include the root cert of anyone who asks"... If we say that it's not acceptable for such a store to be used as the basis of Firefox's SSL, is that silly? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: * Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking at a conference in Wolverhampton. The volume has been pretty light compared to most Debian flamewars. I apologise for not being used to Debian flamewars. ;-) Would you adopt a similar attitude to copyright infringement? No, but as many have pointed out, they're not the same thing. If they were, clearly your agreement would be non-free. What I mean is, would you ever say about a copyright: "I'll ignore this copyright until the copyright owner complains about it"? If not, why do you do it for a trademark? That would make your respect for the law somewhat selective. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Cameron Patrick wrote: I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b) change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the packages unchanged from Debian be required to either ask MoFo for a trademark agreement or rename their Firefox? As I've said to Eric, and earlier on this list, anyone not changing the package would definitely not need to ask. I also suggested that anyone changing it within the bounds of the current trademark policy (e.g. bookmarks, start page etc.) would also not need to ask - which hopefully covers the "trivial" changes that most people would want to make. Perhaps it would help if I posted my proposal again? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Simon Huggins wrote: Do you have a few ideas off the top of your head now of definite things that cannot be touched? Everything's subject to negotiation and discussion - see, for example, my change in position on the SPI cert after consultation within the project. But here's an attempt to answer your question. We want Firefox to be a mark of quality; we still want Firefox to be Firefox, if you see what I mean. Some of Firefox's key distinguishing features are a clean, simple UI, an extensibility mechanism, and good security. So the following would be among the "hot buttons": - Installing significant numbers of extensions by default, particularly if they had intrusive UI or were considered by the community to be of poor quality; - Loosening the security rules significantly (for example, disabling security.checkloaduri to allow http:// content to access file:// URLs for convenience). - Breaking the extensions mechanism such that significant numbers of XPIs off the web stopped working; - Making a change which led to a marked increase in application crashes. [Obviously, if you accidentally did either of these last two things and then went "oops" and issued a fixed package, then that's just a mistake. They happen. No problem, assuming that it doesn't happen every time :-)] I'm still under the impression, waiting to be corrected, that Debian's policy for including new root certs is "we include the root cert of anyone who asks"... If we say that it's not acceptable for such a store to be used as the basis of Firefox's SSL, is that silly? Perhaps anyone the Firefox maintainer/Debian respects and trusts. But just because the Firefox maintainer respects and trusts them doesn't mean they take ridiculously careful care of their private key. The Firefox maintainer has no way of verifying that one way or the other. Why can't we leave this to the maintainer or even local admins though? These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the security of those users, and they have extreme BOFH power over them anyway. However, having the root appear by default, so that no-one at the remote site really knows it's there (who consults the root list) and it's now on Y thousand or million desktops - that is a different kettle of fish. A quick reminder of what's at risk here: if the private key of a root cert trusted by Firefox became compromised, _any_ SSL transaction that any user trusting that cert performed could be silently MITMed and eavesdropped on. Nagios is a trademark. We don't have any issues with Nagios because it's a trademark in the spirit of Free Software where the owner is trying to protect the name from being used by others for his software and avoid legal problems/issues having been burnt before using NetSaint. So the difference between this and the MoFo's policy is the quality requirement? Why does the Mozilla Foundation feel the need to enforce quality through this blunt tool of stopping us using the trademark? Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P Why can't you just produce the best browser? Surely if you produce the best code we'll use it. Indeed - almost certainly, _you_ will. Hence we are doing what we see as the absolulte minimum required by trademark law in your case. However, other people are not so nice. I keep using it as it's a convenient example, but: if there were no trademark, a spyware vendor could trojan a Firefox, put it up for download, then buy AdWords "Official Firefox Download Site!". Even if we make the best browser, _they_ will not use the best code. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Bill Allombert wrote: 1) The name of the package (.deb file if you want). This cannot be changed with much disruption. Does MoFo claims trademark right on firefox or mozilla-firefox when used as package name ? 2) files shipped in pathname including the string mozilla-firefox or firefox, e.g. /usr/bin/mozilla-firefox, /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/chrome. Does MoFo claims trademark right on firefox or mozilla-firefox when used in pathname ? These are good questions. Although we would like to claim rights here, leaving aside the legal issue of whether we _can_, I can see the practical problems this represents. So, if you were to use the trademark, and then subsequently permission to use was withdrawn, we would not require you to change the package names and pathnames (although we would request that you migrate away from them over time). Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P Perhaps I shouldn't have made that flippant comment. What do you mean you can't? You most certainly can, "just" rewrite the license to say that redistribution of modified versions is permitted only it passes QA. You realise, I am sure, that this "just" would a) require getting the permission of probably close to 1000 people, almost all of whom are advocates of free software, and b) not being free software any more. But I'm sure it wasn't a serious suggestion anyway, so let's not consider it any more. The impression you are making here is "Hey, we want to enforce some limitation, but if we do it through copyright license, we will put ourselves out of the free software community. So we backdoor the very same limitation through trademark law in the hope that the free software community will be confused enough to still count us as a member, and accept our trojan horse." Actually, there are free software copyright licences which require a name change of you make code modifications (e.g. Apache v1). I think that means that restrictions on names and branding, assuming they don't present practical difficulties, are certainly not incompatible with free software. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Simon Josefsson wrote: http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a DFSG-free licence (presumably in parallel to the IETF one) - perhaps some sample boilerplate text to include. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
