[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 06:49:08PM +0000, Simon Waters wrote: > Tom Potts wrote: > > > > But someone has to control the name it otherwise I (or another evil org) could > > produce a version of Firefox that was pretty useless. It would be wrong to > > call it Firefox but your saying that would be OK. What a load of rubbish. There are dozens of free-software projects with trademarked names. None of them are even close to being this paranoid about their trademarks. Somebody could produce a version of the Linux kernel that was pretty useless. Nobody actually does, though. I really don't buy this argument at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trademarked_open_source_software > No, Mozilla allow Debian to make changes and keep the name, and then > reverted its stance. > > Sure, Debian could make a really bad version and distribute it in > Debian, but I'm not sure what the point would be. Or Mozilla could have > trusted Debian to do the decent thing.... > > Just folks was criticizing Debian for changing the name, and now you > seem to be arguing they had to as well.... If I remember correctly, Mozilla would be happy to give Debian permission to make and distribute modified versions and keep the name/logo (as they have with, for example, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, etc.), but not for Debian users. The DFSG say that if only Debian has the right to make a modified version, not all Debian users, then it's not free; users need the same rights as the Debian project. On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 07:33:55AM +0000, Tom Potts wrote: > On Wednesday 19 March 2008 20:39, Simon Waters wrote: > > Mozilla corporation asked Debian to choose between the DFSG and using > > the Mozilla trademarked names, and gave them about 1 month before > > release of Etch in which to make a decision. > > > > So they made the only reasonable decision possible and dropped the names. > Sorry - but are you suggesting that everybody drops everything for Debian? Sorry, but are you suggesting that everybody drops everything for Mozilla? Why should Debian change its policies, that've been around for 10+ years, just for the benefit of Mozilla (and to the detriment of its users?). Maybe you're right that Mozilla's policies are perfectly reasonable and shouldn't be changed. If that's the case, the only possible solution was renaming and rebranding. -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: bma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html