On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:58:10AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > In the case of firefox, we're not distributing code identical to something > that's been made available upstream under the name "firefox", we are > patching the code with patches that have not been approved by upstream. If > we were distributing a package that directly corresponded to upstream code > (even to an arbitrary CVS tag/revision), I would argue that we wouldn't > *need* a trademark license from MoFo to distribute it under that name.
We currently patch the buildsystem, some helper modules, to support
more than one installed version, and the default config.
> If we're patching the xen hypervisor, then yes, we're again distributing
> something that is a derived work of xen rather than xen itself, so there's
> legitimate cause for concern that this is a trademark infringement.
The hypervisor themself is unchanged but the tools are not. So I think
we can at least have the hypervisor with this name.
> If the maintainers or ftpmasters are not comfortable that package names are
> safe from claims of trademark infringement by upstreams, then I think we
> should bring the question to SPI's counsel.
I relayed the question to RedHat as they may also get problems with it.
Bastian
--
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
