On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
That is by far the most
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
That is by far the most
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of
Hallo,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes.
Are you sure they are allowed?
So there seems to be
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose
license explicitly requires a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
allows us to do the same
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called Mozilla
Firefox and are claiming Firefox as an extra name.
Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is Debian's trademark policy freedom-restricting? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
of free software.
I
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:46:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called Mozilla
Firefox and are claiming Firefox
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
allows us to do the same
Nick Phillips wrote:
After all, the same kind of thing is fine for TeX, LaTeX, Apache
What are the exact restriction we have to follow when distributing apache? Where
is this documented? Are those restrictions attached to the copyright file?
Cheers,
Alex
--
GPG messages preferred. | .''`.
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
Is Debian's trademark policy freedom-restricting? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under review?
It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 (
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
by the upstream don't get downrated. But in my
Nick Phillips wrote:
After all, the same kind of thing is fine for TeX, LaTeX, Apache
What are the exact restriction we have to follow when distributing apache? Where
is this documented? Are those restrictions attached to the copyright file?
Cheers,
Alex
--
GPG messages
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because
MJ Ray wrote:
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
Is Debian's trademark policy freedom-restricting? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under
It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 (
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
by the upstream don't get downrated. But in my
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:26:50PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The DFSG has a specific permission for authors to require name
changes. That's all Mozilla is doing here: requiring a change of name
for their software.
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 (
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:13:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Because part of the Mozilla Foundation's strategy to raise enough money
to employ people to work on the code involves leveraging the name. I
think this is great - because it's not a model which restricts the
freedom of the code.
Don Armstrong wrote:
I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
release and dealing with all of the problems that that would cause for
the
Alexander Sack wrote:
In contrast, the package you want us to distribute is not distributed by
upstream. You distribute something that is restricted by active
trademark enforcement, which IMHO is non-free, because a trademark
policy is just another way to restrict freedom.
I don't think it's
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
release and dealing with all
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:43:48 + Gervase Markham wrote:
Alexander Sack wrote:
[...]
What I am trying to say is that mozilla is far too eager in
enforcing their trademarks. I hope this is because you just think
this is needed by law.
I hope this is not because you really believe it
Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm no expert in fund-raising strategies: could you please explain what
you mean?
How can MoFo raise funds by preventing other people from calling
Mozilla Firefox a distributed modified version of its XUL-based web
browser?
One example is that we have a deal with Google
MJ Ray wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without
including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how?
Spotted another thread (mail is slow here this week) and replaced
the branding dir. Rebuild underway. Still need to
On 06 Jan 2005 01:30:02 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
Alternatively, if the names are changed to
firebird/tbird/mozzarella or
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005, Francesco Poli wrote:
On 06 Jan 2005 01:30:02 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
At present, it seems we really
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
I don't see why. We don't require that trademark licenses be granted to
our users in any
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
logos
Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words Firefox in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
- The names can be found in files called
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
I don't see why. We don't require that trademark
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see why. We don't require that trademark licenses be granted to
our users in any case - us having an extra permission above and beyond
the freedoms we expect for our users doesn't seem to be a problem.
We're
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
logos
Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words Firefox in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
The default build removes the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But we're also distributing files that the user can't modify without
renaming, so I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. If Mozilla's
/copyright/ license said You may not modify this without renaming it,
unless you have a separate agreement with us,
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words Firefox in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
The default build removes the trademarked logos (the fox-on-globe or the
bird-on-envelope) but not the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right. Material that doesn't provide all the DFSG-required freedoms on
to recipients other than Debian isn't free. But I don't think DFSG 8 is
intended to prevent Debian (or some other class of people) from having
/extra/ freedoms, as long as everyone else has at least
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an important freedom? That's definitely debatable. The name you
use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
It can, especially in the case of a web browser; consider web
Brian Masinick wrote:
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in
order to
not infringe their trademarks.
I think plenty of dialog with Mozilla is a good idea. If they don't
like the
way we package Thunderbird or any of the other packages,
I should point out
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 00:06:12 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly.
DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian
only, and not to downstream recipients as well.
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I don't want to get too far into this conversation until we've
established whether you will need new names.
Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
seems not to
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that sucks
- but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
understand that. :-)
Do you? We want the freedom to ship software that MF *thinks*
sucks but we don't. After all,
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an important freedom? That's definitely debatable. [...]
Is the right to modify the included mozilla logo to signify that it's
a modified version an important freedom?
By the
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without
including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how?
Spotted another thread (mail is slow here this week) and replaced
the branding dir. Rebuild underway. Still need to replace titlebar?
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 11:56:24PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that
sucks - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
understand that. :-)
Here's an idea:
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:28:43 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
If those rights are not available - under the same terms - to our
downstreams (be they users, custom distros... whatever), then by the
spirit of DFSG #8 (at least IMO), we shouldn't be able to make use of
them either.
Exactly.
DFSG #8
Francesco Poli wrote:
Exactly.
DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
and not to downstream recipients as well.
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an important
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly.
DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
and not to downstream recipients as well.
There's some contention over this. Based on the discussion on
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:06:12AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly.
DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
and not to downstream recipients as well.
Gervase Markham wrote:
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an important freedom? That's definitely debatable. The name you
use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
Yes, that's right, but we don't want to be upstream or another
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order to
not infringe their trademarks.
I think plenty of dialog with Mozilla is a good idea. If they don't like the
way we package Thunderbird or any of the other packages, I recommend using
really generic names for each of
Henning Makholm wrote:
But isn't the full suite going to be discontinued once the
thermodynamically challenged predator and its stormy avian cousin
reach maturity anyway?
As I understand it, not anymore: there are enough third parties building
upon Seamonkey (the suite) that it will continue
Josh Triplett wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
But isn't the full suite going to be discontinued once the
thermodynamically challenged predator and its stormy avian cousin
reach maturity anyway?
As I understand it, not anymore: there are enough third parties building
upon Seamonkey (the suite)
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:24:35 + Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
sbird - ... derived from Mozilla Sunbird
moz - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
For what
Francesco Poli wrote:
If these names are unacceptable, I begin to be concerned that users
won't be able to find the right packages or type the right shell
commands, without having to remember weird mutant names from outer
space... :-(
Don't you feel that many users will use that really cool
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that
sucks - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
understand that. :-)
Here's an idea: a source package that builds either Thunderbird for
Debian or
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:20:26 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
As long as we're discussing names
[...]
A name for the suite is hard.
What about the following ones?
tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
sbird - ... derived from
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 10:20:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
A name for the suite is hard.
Mozzarella.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description:
Francesco Poli wrote:
tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
sbird - ... derived from Mozilla Sunbird
moz - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
For what it's worth (and without making any judgement on the legal
weight
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I don't want to get too far into this conversation until
we've established whether you will need new names. Ideally, I want to
get a good understanding of the Debian position on trademarks in
general, and then go to Chris Beard and Mitchell
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
Oughtn't that be godsaic?
--
Henning Makholm Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
Oughtn't that be godsaic?
My understanding of this is a bit shaky, but I'm told by trustworthy
sources that the name of the atomic firebreathing
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 05:35:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't want to negotiate on the names (again) unless we find a
solution that has the backup from debian, from the current package
maintainers (eric, takuo et al) and maybe from
Steve Langasek wrote:
confusingly similar, they should be ignored. (The names firebird and
freebird could be considered confusingly similar, however; I wouldn't opt
if the question is firebird vs. freebird, this might be a problem, but remember
that they switched to firefox, because they
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not the Mozilla authors' decision; confusingly similar is a call to
be made by a judge, and common sense is a strong indicator for this. If the
Mozilla authors try to claim that freebird and thunderbird are
confusingly similar, they should be
Alexander Sack wrote:
So what do they basically want? They basically want us to comply to the
community editions terms as described in [1]. This implies that we do not use
any term that reads: Mozilla Thunderbird. Neither in the package-name nor
in the application itself.
Correct
So what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, let's say I rename the package to 'somebird' and want to produce a good
package for debian. Should I use a patched orig.tar.gz or is it ok to
distribute the source as provided by upstream (of course without the
trademarked icons) and patch the rest (e.g. thunderbird
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 01:30:58AM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order
to
not infringe their trademarks.
We knew this was coming. The Mozilla mob wanted their stuff to be
treated as if it were non-modifiable even though the
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 12:49:04PM +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 01:30:58AM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order
to
not infringe their trademarks.
We knew this was coming. The
OK, I think it is a good idea to post the full mail for reference purpose.
Gervase Markham wrote:
Alexander Sack wrote:
OK, please make a summary ASAP with the points that are needed, e.g. no
package must be called something with mozilla, etc. Please keep in mind that we
are about to
Mike Hommey wrote:
Note that this name change requirement gets interesting to name
Mozilla...
Mozilla Thunderbird can be Thunderbird for Debian or Debian
Thunderbird
Mozilla Firefox can be Firefox for Debian or Debian Firefox
What can be Mozilla ? for Debian or Debian ?
I think they want us to
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:03:20PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
Note that this name change requirement gets interesting to name
Mozilla...
Mozilla Thunderbird can be Thunderbird for Debian or Debian
Thunderbird
Mozilla Firefox can be Firefox for Debian or Debian Firefox
What can be Mozilla ?
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Hommey wrote:
Note that this name change requirement gets interesting to name
Mozilla...
Mozilla Thunderbird can be Thunderbird for Debian or Debian
Thunderbird
Mozilla Firefox can be Firefox for Debian or Debian Firefox
What can be Mozilla ?
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Given the full message you posted,
lightningbug - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
iceweasel - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
And what's the problem? It's OK with the Mozilla
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
lightningbug - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
iceweasel - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
I don't like lightningbug . A bug is a bug and most people don't like
bugs. tbird should
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
lightningbug - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
iceweasel - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
OK, my final name suggestions would be:
freebird - ...thunderbird
freefox - ... firefox
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Neither please. Debian packages should be easily modified by other
people, not just us. It doesn't achieve a great deal to replace their
trademark with our own.
OK, let's say I rename the package to 'somebird' and want to produce a good
package for debian. Should I
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
freebird - ...thunderbird
freefox - ... firefox
freezilla - ... mozilla
Naming the packages like this would emphasize that we want to be free
and not reigned by trademarks.
That's a really good idea. I'm not sure, but it looks from previous
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:15:05PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Neither please. Debian packages should be easily modified by other
people, not just us. It doesn't achieve a great deal to replace their
trademark with our own.
OK, let's say I rename the package to
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 04:21:00PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Frankly, I'd expect them to be pissed. They are trying to write free
software, after all -- so the implication that the Debian versions are
*really* Free and what Mozilla's distributing aren't is likely to be
difficult to
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's a really good idea. I'm not sure, but it looks from previous
messages like you've been communicating with Mozilla Project people
about this. Can you get some of them to agree that these are not
confusingly similar names, to be very clear that they're not
Andrew Suffield wrote:
They can't complain about trademarks if the file is the actual
unmodified upstream tarball: accuracy is an ultimate defence against
trademark claims. If it's been modified by removing stuff for
copyright reasons then you might have a problem, depending on how they
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't want to negotiate on the names (again) unless we find a
solution that has the backup from debian, from the current package
maintainers (eric, takuo et al) and maybe from other free
distributions. The last group is not accessible to me, since I
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 03:35:00PM +0100, Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
Note that this name change requirement gets interesting to name
Mozilla...
Mozilla Thunderbird can be Thunderbird for Debian or Debian
Thunderbird
Mozilla Firefox can be Firefox for Debian
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 08:52:24PM +0100, Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
lightningbug - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
iceweasel - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
OK,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order to
not infringe their trademarks.
So what do they basically want? They basically want us to comply to the
community editions terms as described in [1]. This implies
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Cc:ed because I've no idea if you read the list)
People distributing works derived from the default Debian package of
Thunderbird will have to also comply with the mozilla.org trademark policies,
or
remove the trademarks entirely from the package.
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Alexander Sack wrote:
Hi,
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package
in order to not infringe their trademarks.
So what do they basically want? They basically want us to comply to
the community editions terms as described in [1]. This implies
98 matches
Mail list logo
