* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:25:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > it's sad to see that the safer path (renaming Mozilla applications in > > order to avoid being restricted by any trademark policy) was really the > > one to choose... :-( > > That was my conclusion[1] and unfortunately it seems that the other > > possibility (reaching a trademark agreement) only worked for a short > > time. > > > I wonder if we can come up with a renaming scheme that makes it not too > > difficult for a user to find the right package to install. > > I don't know any reason we should believe that trademark prevents us from > using the name "firefox" for functional elements such as package names and > file/directory names. The trademark does of course prevent us from > labelling the *interface* "firefox" and using the logos; but we already have > a build switch we can use to comply with those requirements.
Certainly file/directory names are functional, but the package name is both labelling and functional. If we call the package firefox, aren't we claiming that's what it is and hence infringing the mark? I'd certainly like to keep the package name unchanged, but also if it is left as firefox and the browser presents itself as "Foobar" might that not confuse users? -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
