Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 12:59:08AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > > Mind you, I don't think I'd necessarily have an issue with "To use > > this trademark, you must run a publically reviewable bug tracking > > system and implement some form of version management" (I might > > still, on a question of practicality, or even a basic question of > > "Does this make it a required cost of the software, and is that > > OK?", but it would be a matter of another debate entirely, at that > > point). > > The problem with this sort of clause is usually the same: what the > hell does it mean?
Or rather, what does it have to do with Mozilla's requirements?
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:06:17 -0500
said:
So we have to therefore say "beyond a certain level of change,
please remove our trademarks".
What purpose is served by Mozilla licensing the trademark under terms
only requiring a BTS and a RCS? Any schmuck can distribute a broken or
otherwise undesirable Mozilla *and* fulfill those terms.
I believe Gerv states that he has confidence in Debian's commitment to
creating a high-quality mozilla-* packages, not that anyone who has the
same infrastructure as Debian will do the same.
-Dave
--
Be different: conform
http://posix.com/posix.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
