Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:35:09PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the security of those users, and they have extreme BOFH power over them anyway. However, having the root appear by default, so that no-one at the remote site really knows it's there (who consults the root list) and it's now on Y thousand or million desktops - that is a different kettle of fish. You've missed the really interesting, really important case. What about the site admin team for X thousand desktops who produce a modified firefox package to be used across the whole company? This is the normal, expected usage of Debian. Happily, trademark law is perfectly indifferent to this case; when the modified package is not advertised, marketed, sold, or otherwise used in commerce under the trademark, there is no case for trademark infringement (AIUI, IANAL). And? It's not because Debian doesn't advertise, market, sell, or otherwise use in commerce its own modified package that other people don't do that. Think of people selling CD images, preinstalled computers... -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On 7/3/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:35:09PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the security of those users, and they have extreme BOFH power over them anyway. However, having the root appear by default, so that no-one at the remote site really knows it's there (who consults the root list) and it's now on Y thousand or million desktops - that is a different kettle of fish. You've missed the really interesting, really important case. What about the site admin team for X thousand desktops who produce a modified firefox package to be used across the whole company? This is the normal, expected usage of Debian. Happily, trademark law is perfectly indifferent to this case; when the modified package is not advertised, marketed, sold, or otherwise used in commerce under the trademark, there is no case for trademark infringement (AIUI, IANAL). And? It's not because Debian doesn't advertise, market, sell, or otherwise use in commerce its own modified package that other people don't do that. Think of people selling CD images, preinstalled computers... Note that I was responding specifically to a concern raised by Andrew about whether the Mozilla Foundation's objections to adding root certs to the Firefox package would affect corporate site admins who rebuild Debian's Firefox. As I see it, that is indeed a legitimate scenario for downstream alteration of the root cert list, but that's OK -- the trademark safety zone automatically extends to the site admin, since she is not marketing her altered package under the trademark. In other words, adding root certs is a common case; but adding root certs _and_marketing_the_result_ is a corner case. I don't have a problem with a clause in a trademark policy that says, the 'safety zone' for descriptive use of our trademark on modified builds does not extend to people who add root certs without our approval and advertise or sell the result under our trademark. I think it's fair to say that QA on the root cert list is rather central to the QA of a secure browser, and for the Mozilla folks to call this out as a sensitive issue is not only reasonable but perhaps (IANAL) necessary if they want to retain the trademark. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Why can't we leave this to the maintainer or even local admins though? These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the security of those users, and they have extreme BOFH power over them anyway. However, having the root appear by default, so that no-one at the remote site really knows it's there (who consults the root list) and it's now on Y thousand or million desktops - that is a different kettle of fish. You've missed the really interesting, really important case. What about the site admin team for X thousand desktops who produce a modified firefox package to be used across the whole company? This is the normal, expected usage of Debian. A quick reminder of what's at risk here: if the private key of a root cert trusted by Firefox became compromised, _any_ SSL transaction that any user trusting that cert performed could be silently MITMed and eavesdropped on. Let's be serious here. You've already got the verisign certificates, and you've got a helpful dialog box that appears whenever new certificates are presented to the browser such that the user can just whack 'ok' without reading it. SSL security on the internet at large is a myth. Anybody who trusts it is insane; the risks aren't very significant. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P Perhaps I shouldn't have made that flippant comment. What do you mean you can't? You most certainly can, just rewrite the license to say that redistribution of modified versions is permitted only it passes QA. You realise, I am sure, that this just would a) require getting the permission of probably close to 1000 people, almost all of whom are advocates of free software, and b) not being free software any more. But I'm sure it wasn't a serious suggestion anyway, so let's not consider it any more. The impression you are making here is Hey, we want to enforce some limitation, but if we do it through copyright license, we will put ourselves out of the free software community. So we backdoor the very same limitation through trademark law in the hope that the free software community will be confused enough to still count us as a member, and accept our trojan horse. Actually, there are free software copyright licences which require a name change of you make code modifications (e.g. Apache v1). I think that means that restrictions on names and branding, assuming they don't present practical difficulties, are certainly not incompatible with free software. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the security of those users, and they have extreme BOFH power over them anyway. However, having the root appear by default, so that no-one at the remote site really knows it's there (who consults the root list) and it's now on Y thousand or million desktops - that is a different kettle of fish. You've missed the really interesting, really important case. What about the site admin team for X thousand desktops who produce a modified firefox package to be used across the whole company? This is the normal, expected usage of Debian. Happily, trademark law is perfectly indifferent to this case; when the modified package is not advertised, marketed, sold, or otherwise used in commerce under the trademark, there is no case for trademark infringement (AIUI, IANAL). A trademark license can of course be conditioned on the licensee's agreement to arbitrary constraints, since (like a copyright license) it is an offer of contract; but the offer on the table from the Mozilla Foundation more nearly resembles a unilateral grant, articulating a safety zone within which no license as such is required, and places no onus on Debian to ensure that recipients of the Debian package don't further re-work it. A quick reminder of what's at risk here: if the private key of a root cert trusted by Firefox became compromised, _any_ SSL transaction that any user trusting that cert performed could be silently MITMed and eavesdropped on. Let's be serious here. You've already got the verisign certificates, and you've got a helpful dialog box that appears whenever new certificates are presented to the browser such that the user can just whack 'ok' without reading it. SSL security on the internet at large is a myth. Anybody who trusts it is insane; the risks aren't very significant. Information security in general is a myth, but like many myths it has utility in some contexts. If you feel some degree of responsibility for ensuring the good conduct of someone else, then it's wise to make good conduct convenient for them and bad conduct as inconvenient, risky, and easy to detect as possible. Site admins who care can make it quite inconvenient for the user to whack 'ok' when there is no chain of trust to a root cert, and can back this up with logging to make it easy to detect and a site policy to make it risky. Selecting root certs carefully can make it relatively convenient for a legitimate site to establish a chain of trust and relatively inconvenient to undermine that trust. None of this is anything resembling foolproof -- or rather clever, determined, non-risk-averse, expendable attacker-proof. But it's sophomoric to claim that ease of circumvention by an unsupervised user would justify a cavalier attitude to root cert security on the part of the Mozilla Foundation. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:01:05AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: My problem with it is DFSG 8. If we accept a trademark license, we're attaching additional rights to the program that are Debian-specific. I understand that the DFSG were framed in the context of copyright licenses, but I think it makes sense in a broader context. It's not _Debian_ specific per se. Think of it as a Macdonalds franchise :) Everyone who wants to buy a Macdonalds restaurant has to commit to meeting standards, training staff the Macdonalds way and so on. A Thai Macdonalds in Bangkok might, for example, want to package fish sauce/green chilli sauce for dipping your McNuggets into - for local taste. They'd need to seek a licence for the packaging and an OK that their modifications don't take them outside the Macdonalds franchise. A Macdonalds in Hong Kong might want hoi sin sauce - or whatever. Basic burgers and so on remain the same, worldwide, and the trademark is very aggressively enforced. Reading the posts from Gerv and grokking context: This is not quite the same: the Mozilla Foundation are approving our coding quality and stating that modifications we make are not diluting the quality behind their trademark BUT they are not saying that we are the only people who can do this and granting an exclusive licence. Any coders who meet their standards and don't weaken their quality can use their trademark if they ask first. The trademark is enforced, but they're not hostile about it and willing to work with us to reach an acceptable situation. Win-win: they get Mozilla products packaged to work well as .debs (and an organisation to talk to if there are problems) and continued distribution: we have our packaging changes endorsed, don't have to rename packages and have a productive relationship with what is now one of the best known names after Linux. [Lots of people are being persuaded to try free and open source software purely by having used Firefox on Windows]. [All trademarks explicitly acknowledged as the property of their respective owners and used here for purely illustrative purposes in a statement of opinion. No legal liability is to be inferred :) ] Just my 0.02 whatever -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:01:05AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: My problem with it is DFSG 8. If we accept a trademark license, we're attaching additional rights to the program that are Debian-specific. I understand that the DFSG were framed in the context of copyright licenses, but I think it makes sense in a broader context. Hasn't this been discussed several times already?A The license is DFSG-free without the Debian-specific offer (which is theoretically not even Debian-specific). We don't *need* the additional rights, but the DFSG doesn't say we can't use them if we have them. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:01:05AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: My problem with it is DFSG 8. If we accept a trademark license, we're attaching additional rights to the program that are Debian-specific. I understand that the DFSG were framed in the context of copyright licenses, but I think it makes sense in a broader context. How about viewing it as material modification by anyone requires a change in trademark/logo/etc., and Mozilla states they believe that Debian's modifications are not material? I realize this may change the Mozilla wording, but it seems to me to be compatible with their desires. This way Debian has no special rights. Nobody can make material changes without changing the ID. Material modifications can be loosely, tightly, or ad-hoc defined by Mozilla. -- Rob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Simon Huggins wrote: Do you have a few ideas off the top of your head now of definite things that cannot be touched? Everything's subject to negotiation and discussion - see, for example, my change in position on the SPI cert after consultation within the project. But here's an attempt to answer your question. We want Firefox to be a mark of quality; we still want Firefox to be Firefox, if you see what I mean. Some of Firefox's key distinguishing features are a clean, simple UI, an extensibility mechanism, and good security. So the following would be among the hot buttons: - Installing significant numbers of extensions by default, particularly if they had intrusive UI or were considered by the community to be of poor quality; - Loosening the security rules significantly (for example, disabling security.checkloaduri to allow http:// content to access file:// URLs for convenience). - Breaking the extensions mechanism such that significant numbers of XPIs off the web stopped working; - Making a change which led to a marked increase in application crashes. [Obviously, if you accidentally did either of these last two things and then went oops and issued a fixed package, then that's just a mistake. They happen. No problem, assuming that it doesn't happen every time :-)] I'm still under the impression, waiting to be corrected, that Debian's policy for including new root certs is we include the root cert of anyone who asks... If we say that it's not acceptable for such a store to be used as the basis of Firefox's SSL, is that silly? Perhaps anyone the Firefox maintainer/Debian respects and trusts. But just because the Firefox maintainer respects and trusts them doesn't mean they take ridiculously careful care of their private key. The Firefox maintainer has no way of verifying that one way or the other. Why can't we leave this to the maintainer or even local admins though? These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the security of those users, and they have extreme BOFH power over them anyway. However, having the root appear by default, so that no-one at the remote site really knows it's there (who consults the root list) and it's now on Y thousand or million desktops - that is a different kettle of fish. A quick reminder of what's at risk here: if the private key of a root cert trusted by Firefox became compromised, _any_ SSL transaction that any user trusting that cert performed could be silently MITMed and eavesdropped on. Nagios is a trademark. We don't have any issues with Nagios because it's a trademark in the spirit of Free Software where the owner is trying to protect the name from being used by others for his software and avoid legal problems/issues having been burnt before using NetSaint. So the difference between this and the MoFo's policy is the quality requirement? Why does the Mozilla Foundation feel the need to enforce quality through this blunt tool of stopping us using the trademark? Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P Why can't you just produce the best browser? Surely if you produce the best code we'll use it. Indeed - almost certainly, _you_ will. Hence we are doing what we see as the absolulte minimum required by trademark law in your case. However, other people are not so nice. I keep using it as it's a convenient example, but: if there were no trademark, a spyware vendor could trojan a Firefox, put it up for download, then buy AdWords Official Firefox Download Site!. Even if we make the best browser, _they_ will not use the best code. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Bill Allombert wrote: 1) The name of the package (.deb file if you want). This cannot be changed with much disruption. Does MoFo claims trademark right on firefox or mozilla-firefox when used as package name ? 2) files shipped in pathname including the string mozilla-firefox or firefox, e.g. /usr/bin/mozilla-firefox, /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/chrome. Does MoFo claims trademark right on firefox or mozilla-firefox when used in pathname ? These are good questions. Although we would like to claim rights here, leaving aside the legal issue of whether we _can_, I can see the practical problems this represents. So, if you were to use the trademark, and then subsequently permission to use was withdrawn, we would not require you to change the package names and pathnames (although we would request that you migrate away from them over time). Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Simon Huggins wrote: Perhaps anyone the Firefox maintainer/Debian respects and trusts. But just because the Firefox maintainer respects and trusts them doesn't mean they take ridiculously careful care of their private key. The Firefox maintainer has no way of verifying that one way or the other. Why is the Mozilla Foundation better able to evalate a CA than Debian? What if we decided that we could not trust one of the CAs that are included in Firefox so we removed their cert? Would that violate our trademark license? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Simon Huggins wrote: Why does the Mozilla Foundation feel the need to enforce quality through this blunt tool of stopping us using the trademark? Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P What do you mean you can't? You most certainly can, just rewrite the license to say that redistribution of modified versions is permitted only it passes QA. Or if it passes QA _or_ the name is changed. Or if it passes QA _or_ the name is changed _or_ the program says Unofficial Version everywhere. Yes, it would make you GPL-incompatible, possibly even non-free software (depending on which of the above you choose and the difficulty of rebranding). The impression you are making here is Hey, we want to enforce some limitation, but if we do it through copyright license, we will put ourselves out of the free software community. So we backdoor the very same limitation through trademark law in the hope that the free software community will be confused enough to still count us as a member, and accept our trojan horse. (I'm not saying this is the case, I haven't read enough of the MoFo trademark threads to make such a judgement. But this reaction of yours certainly makes it seem so.) -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: hoi :) On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:18:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific agreement to call Firefox Firefox. sure, and the consensus seems to be that there is no problem in doing so. It's only you who doesn't want to accept that. Did you actually read the thread? I am not the only one who has a problem with this. It's quite possible mine is the minority opinion on the matter, but that does mean their is consensus. You've done a great job in maintaining firefox, please don't rename your package based on some personal differences with the mozilla trademark policy. I don't have a personal difference with the trademark policy. Have you read it? It would not be possible for any Debian maintainer to work under its conditions. Now the question is whether we can accept a Debian-specific agreement to use the trademark. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Baptiste Carvello ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi Eric, First I wanted to say again that whatever your final decision, a build system that optionally does the renaming would still be appreciated. It would be even better if the MoFo would do it themselves, of course. I'm sure some users would feel better if they are able to ponder the risks for themselves. Also remember that if the MoFo sends you a cease-and-desist letter, you won't have an advanced warning, so you'd better have plan B ready. I don't need a plan B, if they send a cease-and-desist, I just stop using the trademarks, simple (well not entirely simple for me, but straight-forward enough). Also, your mail made me think about the freedom of software. I have a problem with the fact that you won't aknowledge the MoFo's offer, but will accept it implicitly by keeping the package as is if they don't complain. What difference does it make to the user ? If the user doesn't care about this issue, then it makes no difference to them. What's your point? I think what's important, and what DFSG deals with, is what freedom the user has, regardless of what Debian does. What about Firefox ? 1) users may distribute a modified version. 2) users may not call their modified version Firefox. So the question is whether 2) is too obnoxious for the software to still be free. If yes, then Firefox has to go in non-free, if no, then it doesn't matter how it is called in Debian. As a maintainer, you can help make the renaming painless, so that 2) becomes less problematic. IMHO with a suitable building system, 2) would be perfectly acceptable. By keeping the package as firefox, you are making very little change to the user. The only freedom you are taking away from them is: 3) the freedom to call their modified version the same as Debian. This freedom is mostly irrelevant. The only reason a user would want that is if some script directly calls the binary, instead of using the relevant alternative symlink (/usr/bin/mozilla, I think). If the Policy documents that you should not rely on /usr/bin/firefox, 3) is no problem. The trademark goes beyond just the naming of the binary. Then again, what may be desirable for the user is to call their version Firefox, not the same as Debian. Well, I hope I made my point of view as a freedom-concerned user clearer to whoever will make the decision. Btw, I support your calling to the DPL, and I hope he accepts to make the decision, now that everybody had the opportunity to express their view. Again, this discussion is less about the freeness of the software and more about what kind of deals Debian can make to distribute software. Keep on with the good work, I don't really care how it's called ! Cheers, BC -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:38:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as free? Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) The point of DFSG 4, as I understand it, is to permit the licensor to take certain explicit steps to prevent people from drawing the inference that the licensor endorses modified versions in any way. I think if DFSG 4 had intended to grant licensors broad latitude to invent novel ways of prevent such an inference from being drawn, it would have been worded differently -- or, at least, the last two sentences would have been. In my opinion, DFSG 4 somewhat clumsily lumps together two related but distinguishable issues -- one is a presentation format for distribution, the other is a means for the work to identify itself. -- G. Branden Robinson| Religious bondage shackles and Debian GNU/Linux | debilitates the mind and unfits it [EMAIL PROTECTED] | for every noble enterprise. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- James Madison signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think if DFSG 4 had intended to grant licensors broad latitude to invent novel ways of prevent such an inference from being drawn, it would have been worded differently -- or, at least, the last two sentences would have been. Bear in mind that the single most important consideration in choosing the wording of the DFSG appears to have been to avoid removing useful software from main. If the Firefox trademark policy had existed then, I have no doubt that DFSG 4 would have been worded in such a way as to make it unambiguously free. The DFSG were not written with strong consideration for problems that may arise in future. They were written to deal with the problems that existed in 1997. As a result, they don't even attempt to deal with many of the issues we've faced since then. The fact that something is not explicitly permitted by the DFSG doesn't make it non-free. It just means that Bruce hadn't considered the issue back then. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:38:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as free? Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) The point of DFSG 4, as I understand it, is to permit the licensor to take certain explicit steps to prevent people from drawing the inference that the licensor endorses modified versions in any way. I think if DFSG 4 had intended to grant licensors broad latitude to invent novel ways of prevent such an inference from being drawn, it would have been worded differently -- or, at least, the last two sentences would have been. In my opinion, DFSG 4 somewhat clumsily lumps together two related but distinguishable issues -- one is a presentation format for distribution, the other is a means for the work to identify itself. My problem with it is DFSG 8. If we accept a trademark license, we're attaching additional rights to the program that are Debian-specific. I understand that the DFSG were framed in the context of copyright licenses, but I think it makes sense in a broader context. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Cameron Patrick wrote: I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b) change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the packages unchanged from Debian be required to either ask MoFo for a trademark agreement or rename their Firefox? As I've said to Eric, and earlier on this list, anyone not changing the package would definitely not need to ask. I also suggested that anyone changing it within the bounds of the current trademark policy (e.g. bookmarks, start page etc.) would also not need to ask - which hopefully covers the trivial changes that most people would want to make. Perhaps it would help if I posted my proposal again? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Salut Gervase! On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:46:55PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Simon Huggins wrote: That's unfair. I would have summarised more as there's no problem doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes. I don't want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change of code he has to run to Gervase and ask nicely. (note that's not quite what's happening here, rather it's the other way around - the code can be changed but if it's changed in a way that they don't like they could withdraw use of the mark) Mozilla however don't have any objective way of saying whether something is or isn't good quality and appear to want to micromanage these things. I don't think we want to micromanage - in fact, as your previous paragraph states, what we suggested was pretty hands-off. Sorry, I was thinking of the CA issue. But if you have to do this for /every/ change it becomes onerous on the maintainer. Your hot button proposal seems sane. If this thread makes you codify your trademark proposal more than at least some good has come out of it :) Gervase, perhaps you could come up with a better proposal that was objective and could be applied to all parties whilst not being overly onerous so that people meeting some specific guidelines for quality could use the trademarked name (oh and solve world peace, hunger and poverty at the same time, ta ;)). I believe Eric's asked for this in the past in this thread. Is it really such an impossible goal? I really think it is - at least, to the level that I think would be required. Could you define such a set of guidelines for Debian itself, to allow people to use the official Debian logos on modified versions of Debian? Don't open that can of worms again :) Anyway the swirl is nicer and more people associate it with Debian precisely because the trademark license is onerous and has killed off use of the vase thing. [please don't start a logo flamewar here unless you really want swathes of mail] I've said in the past that I'd be happy to draw up a non-binding checklist of hot-buttons and so on, if that would help - to be worked out between the MoFo and Debian. That offer stands. Would this not be useful for all people seeking to use the trademark license? I think it would be worthwhile. Do you have a few ideas off the top of your head now of definite things that cannot be touched? Quality is not a checkbox matter. The control that trademark law requires we exercise over trademark usage (which is reduced to an absolute minimum in the suggested agreement) means we have to maintain quality, not maintain does X, Y and Z but not Q. We say Debian has a reputation for shipping quality software, and we want them to use the trademark. I would hope you guys also want to use it, as a well-known free software brand. Why is our recognition of Debian's quality used as a negative against that happening? Anyone with a similar reputation (e.g. Ubuntu) can get a similar agreement. You want us to use the trademark, we want to use the trademark. It's a question of whether we feel we can compromise our rights to change things freely and still use it that is the issue here. I think it's the uncertainty that scares people here - the fact that if we don't meet some target we can't see or argue against we might have the license to use the trademark removed suddenly. My proposal covered that concern - the Foundation would not have the power to withdraw the trademark from use in a frozen or shipping version of Debian. Sure and that's useful to have. I imagine that the packages will be renamed iceweasel or whatever as soon as Mozilla make some unpopular decision but I don't see how that serves Debian or Mozilla particularly. Sadly the way this thread is going I can all too clearly see Mozilla making some silly ruling in the future which doesn't sit well with Debian :( What from this thread makes you think that the silliness will be on our side? Just the CA issue; that there's no clear decision one way or the other and CAs are one thing you want to control closely. I just wonder how many more issues like this there are - without a list or a codified document of things that are likely to piss you off it's hard to know. I'm still under the impression, waiting to be corrected, that Debian's policy for including new root certs is we include the root cert of anyone who asks... If we say that it's not acceptable for such a store to be used as the basis of Firefox's SSL, is that silly? Perhaps anyone the Firefox maintainer/Debian respects and trusts. Why can't we leave this to the maintainer or even local admins though? As regards ignoring the law and ignoring your trademark license I think that's more political. If you want us to use the name then you'll leave us alone and let us; if we make some change which you don't approve of then the headlines will read Mozilla Foundation stops Debian shipping Firefox!
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:39:05AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Cameron Patrick wrote: I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b) change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the packages unchanged from Debian be required to either ask MoFo for a trademark agreement or rename their Firefox? As I've said to Eric, and earlier on this list, anyone not changing the package would definitely not need to ask. I also suggested that anyone changing it within the bounds of the current trademark policy (e.g. bookmarks, start page etc.) would also not need to ask - which hopefully covers the trivial changes that most people would want to make. Perhaps it would help if I posted my proposal again? Gerv The Mozilla Foundation appear to be acting in good faith. They need to ensure some degree of quality and to protect their trademark. We have distributed their free software for some time: they are prepared to give us permission to continue to distribute it under liberal terms and to extend that to anyone else who meets their quality threshold. Changing names to Debian Iceweasel or whatever would sour a beautiful friendship/close working relationship (delete whichever is not applicable :) ) Gerv's post sounds fine to me. Can someone just accept this on behalf of the Project/an appropriate subset of the developers, agree an appropiate form of words - perhaps along the lines of my previous post on this topic? - and we can get on with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?? Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:39:05AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Cameron Patrick wrote: I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b) change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the packages unchanged from Debian be required to either ask MoFo for a trademark agreement or rename their Firefox? As I've said to Eric, and earlier on this list, anyone not changing the package would definitely not need to ask. I also suggested that anyone changing it within the bounds of the current trademark policy (e.g. bookmarks, start page etc.) would also not need to ask - which hopefully covers the trivial changes that most people would want to make. Perhaps it would help if I posted my proposal again? It would certainly help if you answered the points below, which detail some of the practical cost of rebranding. Thanks in advance! 1) The name of the package (.deb file if you want). This cannot be changed with much disruption. Does MoFo claims trademark right on firefox or mozilla-firefox when used as package name ? 2) files shipped in pathname including the string mozilla-firefox or firefox, e.g. /usr/bin/mozilla-firefox, /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/chrome. Does MoFo claims trademark right on firefox or mozilla-firefox when used in pathname ? We cannot afford the risk of having to change them on short notice, so our only possible course of action is to use names that cannot be reclaimed by the Mozilla Foundation. Of course, how the program display itself is another story: we could well have a iceweasel package containing a /usr/bin/iceweasel binary starting a program displaying itself as Mozilla Firefox if it is within the bound of the trademark policy. My opinion is that Debian can _accept_ the Mozilla Foundation trademark policy, but cannot _depend_ on it. Any move that reduce the cost of rebranding to something that is doable on short notice might enable us to accept the trademark policy. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:48:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: [...] So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian. [...] If the DPL does not step forward to make some sort of agreement, what will I do? Renaming seems to be a very unpopular option. So I believe my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their marks. I think that would be the worst thing to do. The problem has been brought up; Debian does not usually ignore such things. Additionally, accepting the deal does not require much of us -- I think if you 'ignore' the policy, what you'd be doing in practice is to accept the deal. Actually Debian has a long history of doing just that. We ignore patents unless they're enforced. We've ignored trademark policies like this before. I would prefer to take a more active position, but clearly renaming Firefox would be unpopular. As I pointed out in my email, this has the disadvantage of looking like a implicit agreement. I promise to be vigilant in seeking out any unfair application of their trademarks (eg, telling others they are not allowed to use Firefox, while ignoring our use, in a similar context). You have to make a decision. Many people have told you that they don't think it's a problem WRT the DFSG to accept this deal, including some d-legal participants. You disagree, which is your right; but then you have to accept the consequences and live with them, not try to weasel out of them by attempting to 'ignore' the trademark policy (which you can't do anyway). Why can't I? The trademark policy is not a license, and is easily interpreted as the policy MoFo will apply when policing their trademarks. My understanding is they do have to police their own trademarks in most jurisdictions. They know what we're doing. They either have to tell us to stop using the mark, or not. In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I would prefer that you accept it (since I think it's a reasonable one and one not in conflict with the DFSG), I would urge you to not keep the status quo. The keys words of 3.1 point 1 being may and their own work. I think this issue goes beyond my own work. This is about the Mozilla Foundation making an agreement with Debian (ie not me). It certainly relates to my package, but the ramifications go beyond it. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Andrew M.A. Cater ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:59:09AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I would prefer that you accept it (since I think it's a reasonable one and one not in conflict with the DFSG), I would urge you to not keep the status quo. If Eric were to rename the packages there is the potential for somebody else to package again using the Firefox name. Redundant but useful for our users. If the MoFo is willing to recognise that we can package their software for Debian and is willing to give us a hands off, gentlemans agreement license on the basis of the continuing quality of our code - accept a licence in good faith _on that basis_ that the MoFo are licensing us to use their trademark on the basis of our coding and that they can revoke that licence on notice. Add something to the Help splash that can be agreed with MoFo along the lines of This version of Mozilla Firefox has been modified by the Debian Project programmers with the explicit knowledge and consent of the Mozilla Foundation. The basis on which this consent was given can be found in /usr/share/doc/mozilla-firefox/DebianREADME which also details the Debian modifications. This consent does not extend to derivative works which further modify the Debian packaging of Mozilla Foundation code or which package the Mozilla Foundation code in other ways - the authors of such derivative works will need to seek the explicit consent of the Mozilla Foundation to use their trademarks on a case by case basis. We're not being given special rights because we're Debian but because our coding and modifications are acceptable to MoFo: any other programmer can hold themselves out to MoFo as meeting a similar standard and will then, presumably, get the same approval. Presumably isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone, based on the quality criteria that is right now only known to the MoFo. Debian shouldn't be encouraging the use of trademarks that are not equally accessible to all. And we are definitely getting special treatment already from the MoFo: would they really even be entertaining this discussion if we were not such a large distribution? Just my 0.02c -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
hoi :) On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:18:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific agreement to call Firefox Firefox. sure, and the consensus seems to be that there is no problem in doing so. It's only you who doesn't want to accept that. You've done a great job in maintaining firefox, please don't rename your package based on some personal differences with the mozilla trademark policy. -- Martin Waitz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:03:37AM +0200, Martin Waitz wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:18:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific agreement to call Firefox Firefox. sure, and the consensus seems to be that there is no problem in doing so. It's only you who doesn't want to accept that. That's unfair. I would have summarised more as there's no problem doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes. I don't want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change of code he has to run to Gervase and ask nicely. (note that's not quite what's happening here, rather it's the other way around - the code can be changed but if it's changed in a way that they don't like they could withdraw use of the mark) Mozilla however don't have any objective way of saying whether something is or isn't good quality and appear to want to micromanage these things. Gervase, perhaps you could come up with a better proposal that was objective and could be applied to all parties whilst not being overly onerous so that people meeting some specific guidelines for quality could use the trademarked name (oh and solve world peace, hunger and poverty at the same time, ta ;)). I believe Eric's asked for this in the past in this thread. Is it really such an impossible goal? I think it's the uncertainty that scares people here - the fact that if we don't meet some target we can't see or argue against we might have the license to use the trademark removed suddenly. I imagine that the packages will be renamed iceweasel or whatever as soon as Mozilla make some unpopular decision but I don't see how that serves Debian or Mozilla particularly. Sadly the way this thread is going I can all too clearly see Mozilla making some silly ruling in the future which doesn't sit well with Debian :( You've done a great job in maintaining firefox, please don't rename your package based on some personal differences with the mozilla trademark policy. He's not intending to rename it or accept the trademark agreement if you read the original post AFAIK. Simon. -- oOoOo Lefinnois urpmi, rpm, dpkg, apt... connais pas tout ca oOoOo oOoOo moi... moa bourrin... moa gruik dependencies managing oOoOo oOoOo oOoOo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Simon Huggins wrote: That's unfair. I would have summarised more as there's no problem doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes. I don't want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change of code he has to run to Gervase and ask nicely. (note that's not quite what's happening here, rather it's the other way around - the code can be changed but if it's changed in a way that they don't like they could withdraw use of the mark) Mozilla however don't have any objective way of saying whether something is or isn't good quality and appear to want to micromanage these things. I don't think we want to micromanage - in fact, as your previous paragraph states, what we suggested was pretty hands-off. Gervase, perhaps you could come up with a better proposal that was objective and could be applied to all parties whilst not being overly onerous so that people meeting some specific guidelines for quality could use the trademarked name (oh and solve world peace, hunger and poverty at the same time, ta ;)). I believe Eric's asked for this in the past in this thread. Is it really such an impossible goal? I really think it is - at least, to the level that I think would be required. Could you define such a set of guidelines for Debian itself, to allow people to use the official Debian logos on modified versions of Debian? I've said in the past that I'd be happy to draw up a non-binding checklist of hot-buttons and so on, if that would help - to be worked out between the MoFo and Debian. That offer stands. Quality is not a checkbox matter. The control that trademark law requires we exercise over trademark usage (which is reduced to an absolute minimum in the suggested agreement) means we have to maintain quality, not maintain does X, Y and Z but not Q. We say Debian has a reputation for shipping quality software, and we want them to use the trademark. I would hope you guys also want to use it, as a well-known free software brand. Why is our recognition of Debian's quality used as a negative against that happening? Anyone with a similar reputation (e.g. Ubuntu) can get a similar agreement. I think it's the uncertainty that scares people here - the fact that if we don't meet some target we can't see or argue against we might have the license to use the trademark removed suddenly. My proposal covered that concern - the Foundation would not have the power to withdraw the trademark from use in a frozen or shipping version of Debian. I imagine that the packages will be renamed iceweasel or whatever as soon as Mozilla make some unpopular decision but I don't see how that serves Debian or Mozilla particularly. Sadly the way this thread is going I can all too clearly see Mozilla making some silly ruling in the future which doesn't sit well with Debian :( What from this thread makes you think that the silliness will be on our side? I'm still under the impression, waiting to be corrected, that Debian's policy for including new root certs is we include the root cert of anyone who asks... If we say that it's not acceptable for such a store to be used as the basis of Firefox's SSL, is that silly? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: * Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking at a conference in Wolverhampton. The volume has been pretty light compared to most Debian flamewars. I apologise for not being used to Debian flamewars. ;-) Would you adopt a similar attitude to copyright infringement? No, but as many have pointed out, they're not the same thing. If they were, clearly your agreement would be non-free. What I mean is, would you ever say about a copyright: I'll ignore this copyright until the copyright owner complains about it? If not, why do you do it for a trademark? That would make your respect for the law somewhat selective. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: Presumably isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone, based on the quality criteria that is right now only known to the MoFo. How do you judge quality? Do you apply some basic filter, read a metric, and say this program scores 83% on the scale of good code? Or do you have a look at how people write their code, what the result is, and whether you think that result is a good thing? In other words, do you make a judgement call? I think it's the last one; and I think it's going to be pretty damn impossible to make even one objective criterium -- not to mention any plural form. Any judgement of quality involves some subjective judgement call somewhere. Not only because it's impossible to think of all the tricks someone could come up with to sidestep the set of rules you come up with, while still doing stuff you don't want people to associate with your name; also because quality /is/ a very subjective subject matter, after all. Debian shouldn't be encouraging the use of trademarks that are not equally accessible to all. True. But what makes you say they're not equally accessible? Do you have proof that the Mozilla Foundation is indeed not interested in treating everyone by the same set of rules, and is treating us other than it is (or will be) treating any of our derivatives? If not, I don't see what the problem is. Cabal fears perhaps? Well, then maybe you could suggest that they publically state something like We decide on a case-by-case basis whether we think some distributor is holding up to our standards; but if we feel they are not, we will always fully motivate our decision, or We decide on a case-by-case [...]; but the process is open on $mailinglist for everyone to follow, or something similar to that. Would that satisfy your fears? And we are definitely getting special treatment already from the MoFo: would they really even be entertaining this discussion if we were not such a large distribution? Well, I don't know. If I knew my name was being dragged through the mud, I'd react too. Being called names such as MoFo[1], or being accused of not treating everyone the same way without evidence to support that action would trigger some nasty response from my end, for sure. And if that takes a lng discussion, so be it. [1] Motherer. Yeah, yeah, I know. Bad pun. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On 6/27/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: Presumably isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone, based on the quality criteria that is right now only known to the MoFo. How do you judge quality? Do you apply some basic filter, read a metric, and say this program scores 83% on the scale of good code? Or do you have a look at how people write their code, what the result is, and whether you think that result is a good thing? In other words, do you make a judgement call? As a general rule, the trademark holder is obliged to retain the authority to judge whether or not others are maintaining adequate quality controls. This authority is not without bounds (see Prestonettes v. Coty and other precedents I have cited), but delegating too many subjective judgment calls to the trademark user (whether or not he/she is a licensee) risks loss of the trademark. It is apparently possible for a trademark holder to accept contractual limits on his/her/its authority to issue a product a failing grade; see the Sun v. Microsoft saga and the extent to which Sun may be obliged to pass a Java implementation that passes their Test Compatibility Kit. But a browser is not a JVM, and I don't think it's reasonable to ask the Mozilla folks to reduce their QA role to objective validation with a currently non-existent TCK. I hope that Eric or the DPL will decide to formally acknowledge the safety zone offered to Debian by the Mozilla Foundation rather than profess to ignore the trademark policy. A policy that one is ignoring can't be held up to other trademark holders as a modus vivendi; and in any case I think the Foundation deserves better from Debian than that. I do find it encouraging that Eric has invited the DPL to weigh in. I hope that Branden finds the time to consult with competent counsel (which I am not) and to propose a solution that garners enough developer support to be a model for our relationship with other trademark holders. Cheers, - Michael (IANADD, IANAL, TINLA) P. S. The Mozilla Foundation doesn't seem to object to MoFo, and may even have originated the term. But I can certainly see how it could lead to misunderstandings. :)
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Gervase Markham wrote: We say Debian has a reputation for shipping quality software, and we want them to use the trademark. I would hope you guys also want to use it, as a well-known free software brand. Why is our recognition of Debian's quality used as a negative against that happening? Anyone with a similar reputation (e.g. Ubuntu) can get a similar agreement. I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b) change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the packages unchanged from Debian be required to either ask MoFo for a trademark agreement or rename their Firefox? This isn't entirely a hypothetical question - I'm involved in producing a customised Debian distribution; we have changed the source code to a bunch of packages (although not any Mozilla ones) and ship a quite different default configuration for many more (including Thunderbird and I think Firefox too), and would like to make sure we're on the right side of Mozilla's trademark licence :-) Cheers, Cameron. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:48:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: [...] So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian. [...] If the DPL does not step forward to make some sort of agreement, what will I do? Renaming seems to be a very unpopular option. So I believe my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their marks. I think that would be the worst thing to do. The problem has been brought up; Debian does not usually ignore such things. Additionally, accepting the deal does not require much of us -- I think if you 'ignore' the policy, what you'd be doing in practice is to accept the deal. You have to make a decision. Many people have told you that they don't think it's a problem WRT the DFSG to accept this deal, including some d-legal participants. You disagree, which is your right; but then you have to accept the consequences and live with them, not try to weasel out of them by attempting to 'ignore' the trademark policy (which you can't do anyway). In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I would prefer that you accept it (since I think it's a reasonable one and one not in conflict with the DFSG), I would urge you to not keep the status quo. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Hi Eric, First I wanted to say again that whatever your final decision, a build system that optionally does the renaming would still be appreciated. It would be even better if the MoFo would do it themselves, of course. I'm sure some users would feel better if they are able to ponder the risks for themselves. Also remember that if the MoFo sends you a cease-and-desist letter, you won't have an advanced warning, so you'd better have plan B ready. Also, your mail made me think about the freedom of software. I have a problem with the fact that you won't aknowledge the MoFo's offer, but will accept it implicitly by keeping the package as is if they don't complain. What difference does it make to the user ? I think what's important, and what DFSG deals with, is what freedom the user has, regardless of what Debian does. What about Firefox ? 1) users may distribute a modified version. 2) users may not call their modified version Firefox. So the question is whether 2) is too obnoxious for the software to still be free. If yes, then Firefox has to go in non-free, if no, then it doesn't matter how it is called in Debian. As a maintainer, you can help make the renaming painless, so that 2) becomes less problematic. IMHO with a suitable building system, 2) would be perfectly acceptable. By keeping the package as firefox, you are making very little change to the user. The only freedom you are taking away from them is: 3) the freedom to call their modified version the same as Debian. This freedom is mostly irrelevant. The only reason a user would want that is if some script directly calls the binary, instead of using the relevant alternative symlink (/usr/bin/mozilla, I think). If the Policy documents that you should not rely on /usr/bin/firefox, 3) is no problem. Then again, what may be desirable for the user is to call their version Firefox, not the same as Debian. Well, I hope I made my point of view as a freedom-concerned user clearer to whoever will make the decision. Btw, I support your calling to the DPL, and I hope he accepts to make the decision, now that everybody had the opportunity to express their view. Keep on with the good work, I don't really care how it's called ! Cheers, BC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I would prefer that you accept it (since I think it's a reasonable one and one not in conflict with the DFSG), I would urge you to not keep the status quo. If Eric were to rename the packages there is the potential for somebody else to package again using the Firefox name. Redundant but useful for our users. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050626 08:59]: In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I would prefer that you accept it (since I think it's a reasonable one and one not in conflict with the DFSG), I would urge you to not keep the status quo. Of course, the maintainer can delegate the decision to any other person or to any group of persons as he consider it's fit. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:59:09AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I would prefer that you accept it (since I think it's a reasonable one and one not in conflict with the DFSG), I would urge you to not keep the status quo. If Eric were to rename the packages there is the potential for somebody else to package again using the Firefox name. Redundant but useful for our users. If the MoFo is willing to recognise that we can package their software for Debian and is willing to give us a hands off, gentlemans agreement license on the basis of the continuing quality of our code - accept a licence in good faith _on that basis_ that the MoFo are licensing us to use their trademark on the basis of our coding and that they can revoke that licence on notice. Add something to the Help splash that can be agreed with MoFo along the lines of This version of Mozilla Firefox has been modified by the Debian Project programmers with the explicit knowledge and consent of the Mozilla Foundation. The basis on which this consent was given can be found in /usr/share/doc/mozilla-firefox/DebianREADME which also details the Debian modifications. This consent does not extend to derivative works which further modify the Debian packaging of Mozilla Foundation code or which package the Mozilla Foundation code in other ways - the authors of such derivative works will need to seek the explicit consent of the Mozilla Foundation to use their trademarks on a case by case basis. We're not being given special rights because we're Debian but because our coding and modifications are acceptable to MoFo: any other programmer can hold themselves out to MoFo as meeting a similar standard and will then, presumably, get the same approval. Just my 0.02c Andy Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Eric Dorland wrote: * Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as Debian (or official Debian, or whatever it is you guys use). :-) When I said rights, I meant rights to the software in main. That's what Debian cares about. I should of been more clear. So it's OK for Debian to use trademarks to protect their free software brand, but not OK for those whose software is included in Debian? My position has never been that trademarks are evil. I understand that you want to protect your trademarks, and I can understand the utility of having one. You are perfectly within your rights to demand we not call the build of Firefox we have in Debian Firefox, just as Debian can ask someone to refrain from calling some Debian-derived distribution Debian. Indeed, you have setup a trademark policy that does not allow us to call it Firefox. The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific agreement to call Firefox Firefox. They do have concerns about the trustability of CAcert certs. I'm mostly convinced they're no worse than other CA's. What we have a problem with (in the context of including the cert in Firefox) is the fact that CAcert haven't been audited, so the risk of including them is unquantifiable. Please see the CAcert list for recent discussions on this topic. Can you please point me to the document where you went and verified that all your current CA's have been audited and met your CA policy? We haven't yet audited the current CAs; the decision was taken (given how long it took to develop the policy) to prioritise new CAs. Current CAs at least have the evidence of history to back up their trustworthiness. Here's another situation you might want to consider. What if Debian decided one of your CA's was not trustworthy and removed it? Would that be grounds for losing the trademark? That's a very different issue; we have considered it, of course. The answer would probably depend on how used the root was - i.e. how far removing it degraded the user experience - combined with the reasons for removal. But we haven't thought about this one as hard, because it hasn't come up in practice. Well the only reason to remove a CA would really be that they could not be trusted to sign certificates anymore, and in that case, user experience be damned. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Shachar Shemesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am not a lawyer. I am a consultant trying to understand the world he lives in, and as such, studied the applicable law a little. Eric Dorland wrote: So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian. If however, the DPL wished to step forward and broker such a deal I would not oppose (he is our elected representative for the project after all). If the DPL does not step forward to make some sort of agreement, what will I do? Renaming seems to be a very unpopular option. So I believe my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their marks. It should just be noted that such a move does have consequences as well. This is not a no-op move. The no-op move would have been to rename the package. Renaming the package is hardly a no-op. Now I originally said we shouldn't do this, but it does have certain advantages. First of all, I think we can ignore the trademark policy because it is only a policy, is not distributed with the software (although having said that, that might change) and it is my understanding that in most jurisdictions the trademark holder has to police use of their trademark anyway. Quite like the GPL, it boils down to whether we are required, by law, to have the MoFo's approval. If we are, then the policy holds true for us. If we are not, then not signing an agreement with them is a sane move. Now the advantage of doing this is foremost to not have to rename Firefox unless the MoFo ask us to. There is also protects us from looking like the bad guy in the case of a rename (eg the /. headline will read MoFo tells Debian not to use 'Firefox' rather than Free software nuts stop using 'Firefox'). What it does not protect us from, however, is a lawsuit. I'm not saying MoFo would sue, but if they would, it would put the Debian project under complete legal liability. Normally, one can claim innocent infringement, which means you are not liable for the infringement done prior to becoming aware of the problem. As a side note, this holds true for patents as well. In this case, however, we cannot claim that we did not know, as this has been discussed on a public forum. They will have no grounds for a lawsuit. They know exactly what we're doing, we told them. All they have to do is tell us to rename the package, and I will comply as quickly as I possibly can. Of course the other advantage is not having to make an agreement that I think compromises our principles. Of course the disadvantage would be that by ignoring the issue we're implicitly agreeing to the MoFo's proposal. No, it's quite worse. By ignoring the issue, we are forcing MoFo to either sue us or lose the trademark. That's the way trademark law works. Just like we can no longer claim we didn't know these things were trademarked, they will not be able to claim they didn't know Debian was using their trademarks without an agreement. This means that if they don't do something legal to us now, they will never be able to do anything regarding their trademark to anyone else ever. In effect, not signing the agreement and keeping the name means that we are forcing them to sue or lose. They will not sue us. It would make no sense, when asking us will accomplish the same thing. I'm afraid the only way of not taking an active stance on the issue of whether free software should have registered trademarks is to rename our version of Firefox. If we do not sign and not rename, we are taking an anti-trademark stance by forcing MoFo to take legal action against us (which will hurt them dearly as well), or to drop the Trademark idea. If we do sign the contract we're implicitly saying that we think that the MoFo course of action is the right way to go. To put another way, once MoFo decided to issue a trademark, they have no choice BUT to ask Debian to sign such an agreement. Debian is too widely used for MoFo to claim they didn't know that we are infringing (and if they can't claim that, trademark law says they cannot enforce their trademark against anyone else), and they likely don't WANT us to stop using the name Firefox. Both because they likely really do want the software to be free, and because that weakens the trademark, not strengthens it. There is no reason for MoFo to compel us to make this sort of agreement. I don't see any reason they cannot include in their trademark policy more permissive uses of the mark. Other projects have done similar things. Two important notes: 1. The above is my understanding of trademark law, and does not include my opinion as for what we SHOULD do. Not being a Debian Developer (yet), I don't think my
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Eric Dorland wrote: The thread is petering out Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking at a conference in Wolverhampton. The volume has been pretty light compared to most Debian flamewars. Some very smart developers have come forward to say that trademarks don't matter with respect to free software. I'd certainly disagree with that. I'd say they matter very much. I think free software should actively use trademarks for what they are designed for - a mark of quality. Firefox. There is also very little guidance in what would be acceptable trademark restrictions for a free software project. I hope there can still be some dialog within Debian and hopefully come up with some guidelines that developers can accept. That would be excellent. I hope that my suggestions for managing the Firefox trademark would be a starting point for those discussions. So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian. If you are not empowered, who is? The DPL, as I point out in the next paragraph. If the DPL does not step forward to make some sort of agreement, what will I do? Renaming seems to be a very unpopular option. So I believe my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their marks. Would you adopt a similar attitude to copyright infringement? No, but as many have pointed out, they're not the same thing. If they were, clearly your agreement would be non-free. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
The thread is petering out and as much as I had hoped Matthew Garrett and MJ Ray would go 12 rounds of bare-knuckle boxing, it's time to make some decisions. Some very smart developers have come forward to say that trademarks don't matter with respect to free software. Unfortunately, I'm still unconvinced that we should be willing to make certain compromises to use a projects trademarks. Certainly it is clear the name associated with a project is important, considering how many objected to renaming Firefox. There is also very little guidance in what would be acceptable trademark restrictions for a free software project. I hope there can still be some dialog within Debian and hopefully come up with some guidelines that developers can accept. I also hope to put the trademark question to RMS when he's here in Montreal next week. So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian. If however, the DPL wished to step forward and broker such a deal I would not oppose (he is our elected representative for the project after all). If the DPL does not step forward to make some sort of agreement, what will I do? Renaming seems to be a very unpopular option. So I believe my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their marks. Now I originally said we shouldn't do this, but it does have certain advantages. First of all, I think we can ignore the trademark policy because it is only a policy, is not distributed with the software (although having said that, that might change) and it is my understanding that in most jurisdictions the trademark holder has to police use of their trademark anyway. Now the advantage of doing this is foremost to not have to rename Firefox unless the MoFo ask us to. There is also protects us from looking like the bad guy in the case of a rename (eg the /. headline will read MoFo tells Debian not to use 'Firefox' rather than Free software nuts stop using 'Firefox'). Of course the other advantage is not having to make an agreement that I think compromises our principles. Of course the disadvantage would be that by ignoring the issue we're implicitly agreeing to the MoFo's proposal. The MoFo may apply their trademark policy to entities just as deserving as Debian, and they will be told they can't use the marks because they are not as popular as us. I will be on the lookout for any such instance, and will bring the issue up again if I see it happening. Hopefully this will make everyone happy (or at least equally unhappy), but I think it is the best compromise for the time being, until at least better policies are worked out with regard to trademarks. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
I am not a lawyer. I am a consultant trying to understand the world he lives in, and as such, studied the applicable law a little. Eric Dorland wrote: So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian. If however, the DPL wished to step forward and broker such a deal I would not oppose (he is our elected representative for the project after all). If the DPL does not step forward to make some sort of agreement, what will I do? Renaming seems to be a very unpopular option. So I believe my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their marks. It should just be noted that such a move does have consequences as well. This is not a no-op move. The no-op move would have been to rename the package. Now I originally said we shouldn't do this, but it does have certain advantages. First of all, I think we can ignore the trademark policy because it is only a policy, is not distributed with the software (although having said that, that might change) and it is my understanding that in most jurisdictions the trademark holder has to police use of their trademark anyway. Quite like the GPL, it boils down to whether we are required, by law, to have the MoFo's approval. If we are, then the policy holds true for us. If we are not, then not signing an agreement with them is a sane move. Now the advantage of doing this is foremost to not have to rename Firefox unless the MoFo ask us to. There is also protects us from looking like the bad guy in the case of a rename (eg the /. headline will read MoFo tells Debian not to use 'Firefox' rather than Free software nuts stop using 'Firefox'). What it does not protect us from, however, is a lawsuit. I'm not saying MoFo would sue, but if they would, it would put the Debian project under complete legal liability. Normally, one can claim innocent infringement, which means you are not liable for the infringement done prior to becoming aware of the problem. As a side note, this holds true for patents as well. In this case, however, we cannot claim that we did not know, as this has been discussed on a public forum. Of course the other advantage is not having to make an agreement that I think compromises our principles. Of course the disadvantage would be that by ignoring the issue we're implicitly agreeing to the MoFo's proposal. No, it's quite worse. By ignoring the issue, we are forcing MoFo to either sue us or lose the trademark. That's the way trademark law works. Just like we can no longer claim we didn't know these things were trademarked, they will not be able to claim they didn't know Debian was using their trademarks without an agreement. This means that if they don't do something legal to us now, they will never be able to do anything regarding their trademark to anyone else ever. In effect, not signing the agreement and keeping the name means that we are forcing them to sue or lose. I'm afraid the only way of not taking an active stance on the issue of whether free software should have registered trademarks is to rename our version of Firefox. If we do not sign and not rename, we are taking an anti-trademark stance by forcing MoFo to take legal action against us (which will hurt them dearly as well), or to drop the Trademark idea. If we do sign the contract we're implicitly saying that we think that the MoFo course of action is the right way to go. To put another way, once MoFo decided to issue a trademark, they have no choice BUT to ask Debian to sign such an agreement. Debian is too widely used for MoFo to claim they didn't know that we are infringing (and if they can't claim that, trademark law says they cannot enforce their trademark against anyone else), and they likely don't WANT us to stop using the name Firefox. Both because they likely really do want the software to be free, and because that weakens the trademark, not strengthens it. Two important notes: 1. The above is my understanding of trademark law, and does not include my opinion as for what we SHOULD do. Not being a Debian Developer (yet), I don't think my opinion on the matter matter that much. In any case, this is more down to personal beliefs than actual reasoned discussion. 2. I am not a lawyer, so the above may be a distorted view of the real state of affairs. The correct thing to do with anything I write on the matter is to take it to a real lawyer, and ask his/her opinion about it. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Shachar writes: No, it's quite worse. By ignoring the issue, we are forcing MoFo to either sue us or lose the trademark. They are not forced to sue. They need (at most) only send us a cease-and-desist letter. They could also decide that our use is non-infringing and ignore it. Just like we can no longer claim we didn't know these things were trademarked, they will not be able to claim they didn't know Debian was using their trademarks without an agreement. They did not tell us to stop using the mark immediately upon learning that we were using it. That's implicit approval of our use. They have to tell us to stop using the mark before they can claim we are infringing it. If we obey a cease-and-desist they will have no grounds for a lawsuit. This means that if they don't do something legal to us now, they will never be able to do anything regarding their trademark to anyone else ever. You assume that our usage is infringing. I don't think that is established. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
John Hasler wrote: This means that if they don't do something legal to us now, they will never be able to do anything regarding their trademark to anyone else ever. You assume that our usage is infringing. I don't think that is established. If our usage is non-infringing, then no contract is necessary. In other words, I'm only assuming they assume our usage is infringing. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: * Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as Debian (or official Debian, or whatever it is you guys use). :-) When I said rights, I meant rights to the software in main. That's what Debian cares about. I should of been more clear. So it's OK for Debian to use trademarks to protect their free software brand, but not OK for those whose software is included in Debian? They do have concerns about the trustability of CAcert certs. I'm mostly convinced they're no worse than other CA's. What we have a problem with (in the context of including the cert in Firefox) is the fact that CAcert haven't been audited, so the risk of including them is unquantifiable. Please see the CAcert list for recent discussions on this topic. Can you please point me to the document where you went and verified that all your current CA's have been audited and met your CA policy? We haven't yet audited the current CAs; the decision was taken (given how long it took to develop the policy) to prioritise new CAs. Current CAs at least have the evidence of history to back up their trustworthiness. Here's another situation you might want to consider. What if Debian decided one of your CA's was not trustworthy and removed it? Would that be grounds for losing the trademark? That's a very different issue; we have considered it, of course. The answer would probably depend on how used the root was - i.e. how far removing it degraded the user experience - combined with the reasons for removal. But we haven't thought about this one as hard, because it hasn't come up in practice. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: The thread is petering out Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking at a conference in Wolverhampton. Some very smart developers have come forward to say that trademarks don't matter with respect to free software. I'd certainly disagree with that. I'd say they matter very much. I think free software should actively use trademarks for what they are designed for - a mark of quality. Firefox. There is also very little guidance in what would be acceptable trademark restrictions for a free software project. I hope there can still be some dialog within Debian and hopefully come up with some guidelines that developers can accept. That would be excellent. I hope that my suggestions for managing the Firefox trademark would be a starting point for those discussions. So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian. If you are not empowered, who is? If the DPL does not step forward to make some sort of agreement, what will I do? Renaming seems to be a very unpopular option. So I believe my best option is to ignore the trademark policy altogether and have the Mozilla Foundation tell us when they want us to stop using their marks. Would you adopt a similar attitude to copyright infringement? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eric Dorland wrote: So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian. If you are not empowered, who is? The Debian Project Leader is, as I understand it, the officer who is empowered by the Debian Project to make agreements on behalf of the project. See http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, particularly 5.1.4 and 5.1.10, although neither of these are particularly unambiguous in this area. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Eric Dorland | * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: | * Eric Dorland | | | BTW, any Ubuntu developers care to comment? I'm interested in second | | opinions and how you guys are handling this situation? Did you accept | | an arrangement with MoFo? | | We've been in touch with them and have currently renamed the | mozilla-firefox package to firefox. The same thing is going to happen | to mozilla-thunderbird once I get around to it. We are unsure about | the downstream namechange requirement, but not having firefox in there | would be bad. So, a bit undecided at the moment. | | Thanks for answering. We may end up having to do the mozilla-firefox | - firefox rename too if we keep the name too. Is Ubuntu concerned | about MoFo's trademark policy? Did Ubuntu make a similar arrangement | with MoFo that we're being offered? Sorry for being late answering this. I've been out travelling and slightly out of touch with my email. Yes, we're concerned about how to handle the trademark policy, especially given our focus on derived distributions. At the moment, I don't think anybody has actually sat down and decided anything as we are interested in what Debian decides to do. We have a current understanding with MoFo that we're respecting their trademarks and transitioning to something which is within the bounds of what they allow to. | As an aside (I should probably just look) but are you guys using their | official logo? TTBOMK, no. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: And this is my problem with the inclusion of MF's trademark usage in our package: the right to include such trademark *is* attached to the program (after all, it's the original name of the program (**)); it's a right that *must* *not* *depend* on the program's being part of a Debian system. One *must* be capable of extracting the program from Debian and use it, or distribute it, without debian, but otherwise within the terms of the program's license -- which obviously (at least IMHO) includes the license to the trademarks originally included in the program. You must be free to do so, and you are free to do so. If you further modify it, you have to follow the terms of the license. One of those terms is that you change the name, and that is perfectly acceptable under the DFSG. All that has happened, as far as I can tell, is that the Mozilla Foundation waved the requirement for Debian to change the name. Granting additional rights shouldn't make something less free. It does /not/ prohibit Debian the organization from having rights that other people don't. It is unreasonable to read it that way, because Debian will *always* have additional rights in some works, for example those which it is author or copyright holder of. You are 100% right. But this is irrelevant, because you ignored the context of my phrase. The relevant (contextualized) meaning of my phrase above is: premise 1 = DFSG #8 classifies as non-free software that has *any* rights attached to it that depends on the software be distributed in Debian. As long as we're being technical about the meaning of DFSG 8, I might as well point out that, technically, the Mozilla Foundation has offered additional permission for software prepared by Debian. If Debian decided to distribute Mozilla Firefox outside of Debian-the-OS, that permission would still apply. premise 2 = Mozilla Foundation Firefox trademark, which is present to be displayed in the usage of the firefox browser as it comes originally, has a restrictive license that either (a) forbids it to be used by Debian or (b) allows it to be used by Debian and Debian only, according to our acceptance or not of their offer of exclusive trademark licensing. conclusion = non-rebranded Firefox is not Free Software as per the DFSG. DFSG explicitly allows the license to require the software be renamed if modified. Hence, non-rebranded Firefox is free though without the additional trademark license, we might not be able modify it and keep the name [as you note, I'm not sure if trademark law actually requires us to rename it, especially for minor changes]. But that's only discouraged, not non-free. This is a fairly simple conclusion, and no historically the DFSG was made thinking about copyrights only argument contradicts what is precisely stated there. I agree with this part: Claims that the DFSG applies only to copyrights are not correct; the DFSG must apply to the entire, aggregate licence to the software, no matter what area of law it is made under: Otherwise, we are not actually protecting the freedoms of our users, in violation of the Social Contract. But the DFSG generally wouldn't apply to trademarks, because trademarks are names, and names are exempted explicitly from the DFGS. Even taking the DFSG #4 concession, what is being asked from the MF is not a rename of the program (in which case the version in Debian could be called firefox-debianized or somesuch), but a complete purge of the trademark from the visible part of the program (including menu items, etc), which goes IMHO clearly beyond the DFSG #4 exception. The DFSG 4 exception talks about a different name, not a different package name, a different file name, or any other similar technical concept. The name of a program is a human concept, and should be understood as allowing the license to require a change in what the user will perceive the name to be, not just what the packaging system calls it. That includes changing that every window says Mozilla Firefox in the title bar; that the Help menu says About Firefox and displays a dialogue with the name Firefox prominently displayed as the program's name, etc. Now, it may be that we don't think that should be free. If so, though, we need to change the DFSG. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
I wrote: The notion that we would be infringing their trademark by failing to remove strings that they put in is ludicrous. It's equivalent to Ford demanding that I remove all the Ford logos before selling my truck. Eric Dorland writes: Your analogy is flawed. My ford is still a ford if however I try to pass off my completely rebuilt car and tried to pass it off as ford. If I put a NAPA water pump in my Ford I am not required to remove the Ford logos before selling it. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Matthew Garrett wrote: Lack of choice of venue imposes a burden on the licensor in case of litigation - I see no reason why one is obviously free and the other non-free. No, lack of choice of venue generally imposes a burden on the plaintiff, who may be either the licensor or the licensee. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #8 -- witch is part of the SC, IIRC -- forbids us to have rights that our users don't have. No, it doesn't. It says: The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. Very clearly, DFSG 8 states that you can not have a different set of rights in regard to FireFox when it is distributed as part of Debian vs. when it is not distributed as part of Debian. That's all. It does /not/ prohibit Debian the organization from having rights that other people don't. It is unreasonable to read it that way, because Debian will *always* have additional rights in some works, for example those which it is author or copyright holder of.
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
** Anthony DeRobertis :: Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #8 -- witch is part of the SC, IIRC -- forbids us to have rights that our users don't have. No, it doesn't. It says: The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. This is exactly what I was talking about: if you consider their trademark policy (for everybody else) combined with their license for Debian to use their trademark, you do have rights attached to the program (the presence of MF's trademarks, most visibly in the caption of the main window and in the names of both the package and the main executable AFAIK (*)) that depend on the program's being part of Debian. And that's it. The only copies of Firefox that do not infringe on this particular DFSG clause are those which are absolutely clean of MF's trademarks. Very clearly, DFSG 8 states that you can not have a different set of rights in regard to FireFox when it is distributed as part of Debian vs. when it is not distributed as part of Debian. That's all. And this is my problem with the inclusion of MF's trademark usage in our package: the right to include such trademark *is* attached to the program (after all, it's the original name of the program (**)); it's a right that *must* *not* *depend* on the program's being part of a Debian system. One *must* be capable of extracting the program from Debian and use it, or distribute it, without debian, but otherwise within the terms of the program's license -- which obviously (at least IMHO) includes the license to the trademarks originally included in the program. It does /not/ prohibit Debian the organization from having rights that other people don't. It is unreasonable to read it that way, because Debian will *always* have additional rights in some works, for example those which it is author or copyright holder of. You are 100% right. But this is irrelevant, because you ignored the context of my phrase. The relevant (contextualized) meaning of my phrase above is: premise 1 = DFSG #8 classifies as non-free software that has *any* rights attached to it that depends on the software be distributed in Debian. premise 2 = Mozilla Foundation Firefox trademark, which is present to be displayed in the usage of the firefox browser as it comes originally, has a restrictive license that either (a) forbids it to be used by Debian or (b) allows it to be used by Debian and Debian only, according to our acceptance or not of their offer of exclusive trademark licensing. conclusion = non-rebranded Firefox is not Free Software as per the DFSG. This is a fairly simple conclusion, and no historically the DFSG was made thinking about copyrights only argument contradicts what is precisely stated there. Even taking the DFSG #4 concession, what is being asked from the MF is not a rename of the program (in which case the version in Debian could be called firefox-debianized or somesuch), but a complete purge of the trademark from the visible part of the program (including menu items, etc), which goes IMHO clearly beyond the DFSG #4 exception. (*) I don't even know if US trademark law allows them to go that far; I could NOT find in Brazilian trademark law any references to anything as deep as that. Basically, the only references that I found in BR case law were to *advertising* and *misrepresenting* something as being from the wrong origin. Anyway, the situation that we have here is: we are modifying Civics and putting different accessories and tuning the engine. We are not obliged to sell our Civics under any other name (maybe in the interest of full disclosure we should state to the next buyer that the car is modified and tuned, IRT the original Civics, and our Consumer Defense Act even makes us give some warranty on the services we made on the vehicle). The Civic is a Civic and any non-forking, non-backdooring, derivative of Firefox is still Firefox, without any trademark being violated IMHO. IANAL, TINLA, and I am not quite familiarized with the Brazilian Industrial Property Act (which regulates trademarks and patents, and gives some instructions about trade/industrial secrets), as opposed to Brazilian copyright statutes and case law, which I am quite familiar with, having worked in some cases while I was a paralegal in a DA's office, criminally prosecuting alledged copyright infringers. (**) as opposed to other trademarks that also cannot be used in the program. An example: I cannot take a modified firefox and call it The Coca-Cola Browser, as I cannot take modified k3b and re-brand it The Coca-Cola CD Burner. Does this fact make those programs non-free? NO. Because the
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimarães writes: (*) I don't even know if US trademark law allows them to go that far... The notion that we would be infringing their trademark by failing to remove strings that they put in is ludicrous. It's equivalent to Ford demanding that I remove all the Ford logos before selling my truck. Basically, the only references that I found in BR case law were to *advertising* and *misrepresenting* something as being from the wrong origin. Same in the US. -- John Hasler (IANAL) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Humberto Massa Guimarães writes: (*) I don't even know if US trademark law allows them to go that far... The notion that we would be infringing their trademark by failing to remove strings that they put in is ludicrous. It's equivalent to Ford demanding that I remove all the Ford logos before selling my truck. Your analogy is flawed. My ford is still a ford if however I try to pass off my completely rebuilt car and tried to pass it off as ford. Basically, the only references that I found in BR case law were to *advertising* and *misrepresenting* something as being from the wrong origin. Same in the US. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
2005/6/17, Will Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: aol/ The ironic thing is, even if we do rename, who is going to do the trademark search to prove that the new name we choose is not someone else's trademark who we do NOT have permission to use? I doubt this is relevent. Unless there is another *browser* called iceweasel. If someone makes a washing machine called iceweasel (or firefox for that matter) there's a good chance they wouldn't conflict. Debian appears to have used the term long enough that I don't think it's going to be an issue. Have a nice day, Martijn
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:16:18 -0400 Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Jun 15, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the priorities of our users and free software... And where do we strike that balance in this case? I think gaining more freedom for our users is the best thing in the long run. Sure, there will be shorter term pain, but we need to take the long view. I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal trademarks. If a trademark license allows us to ship the software the way we want and there are no practical problems in removing trademark references if it were ever needed then I think it's obvious that we would do a disservice to our users by removing from Debian such a widely know trademark without a good reason. Well the whole issue is I don't believe we're allowed to ship the software the way we want. We would be compromising our principles by doing so. There are good reasons for a trademark license to be restrictive and I believe that the MF made a good case about their one, so I do not think that it's important for users to have the permission to use it however they want. The code is still free no matter how it is branded so this is not an issue of software freedom, at best this is a marketing issue. I never asked them to give users permission to use it however they want. But their current permissions are too restrictive. From the discussions on this thread, it is your last statement that has not been accepted by everyone here, myself included ;-) 1. If the tradmark restrictions, combined with the license, require that we not use the term Firefox in identifying their product of that name, then we do that, even though we all agree it is stupid. Those who can't find the product in Debian will find it at the Mozilla site (I have some Debian machines that are running Firefox in this fashion) 2. Examine the purpose of a trademark in the first place. The intent is for the specific name to be identified with the specific product. The fact that Debian uses the Mozilla and Firefox trademarks to properly identify the products delivered tells me that we are using their trademarks correctly. If one of our end user's took the Mozilla packages and reworked them to be the desktop, with links into every other piece of software in the system, and then tried to distribute this product under the Mozilla/Firefox trademarks that would represent a gross violation of their trademark. (for which Debian would have no reaponsibility BTW) As a counter example, one of the Knoppix based live CD distributions (Either Morphix or Byzantine, I can't remember which) has the desktop actually be the browser. But, of course, they don't call it mozilla or firefox, or use any of the trademarks, so they have followed the rules as well. I guess, from what I've said above, I believe that the current state of affairs in Debian is consistant with the letter of the licensing of that software, and consistant with the spirit of their tradmark usage document. Changing the names of these packages to contain neither the substring mozilla nor the substring firefox would, in fact, hurt both Debian and Mozilla, not to mention what it does to the maintainer's morale. Luck, Dwarf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Dale C. Scheetz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:16:18 -0400 Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Jun 15, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the priorities of our users and free software... And where do we strike that balance in this case? I think gaining more freedom for our users is the best thing in the long run. Sure, there will be shorter term pain, but we need to take the long view. I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal trademarks. If a trademark license allows us to ship the software the way we want and there are no practical problems in removing trademark references if it were ever needed then I think it's obvious that we would do a disservice to our users by removing from Debian such a widely know trademark without a good reason. Well the whole issue is I don't believe we're allowed to ship the software the way we want. We would be compromising our principles by doing so. There are good reasons for a trademark license to be restrictive and I believe that the MF made a good case about their one, so I do not think that it's important for users to have the permission to use it however they want. The code is still free no matter how it is branded so this is not an issue of software freedom, at best this is a marketing issue. I never asked them to give users permission to use it however they want. But their current permissions are too restrictive. From the discussions on this thread, it is your last statement that has not been accepted by everyone here, myself included ;-) 1. If the tradmark restrictions, combined with the license, require that we not use the term Firefox in identifying their product of that name, then we do that, even though we all agree it is stupid. Those who can't find the product in Debian will find it at the Mozilla site (I have some Debian machines that are running Firefox in this fashion) 2. Examine the purpose of a trademark in the first place. The intent is for the specific name to be identified with the specific product. The fact that Debian uses the Mozilla and Firefox trademarks to properly identify the products delivered tells me that we are using their trademarks correctly. If one of our end user's took the Mozilla packages and reworked them to be the desktop, with links into every other piece of software in the system, and then tried to distribute this product under the Mozilla/Firefox trademarks that would represent a gross violation of their trademark. (for which Debian would have no reaponsibility BTW) As a counter example, one of the Knoppix based live CD distributions (Either Morphix or Byzantine, I can't remember which) has the desktop actually be the browser. But, of course, they don't call it mozilla or firefox, or use any of the trademarks, so they have followed the rules as well. You're skipping the crucial point here. Under the publicly available licenses/policies, we *cannot* call it Firefox. The MoFo is offering us an agreement that allows us to use the mark. I think agreeing to this is against the spirit of DFSG #8, and sets a bad precedent (speaking of precedents, have we ever made such an agreement before to use a trademark?). I guess, from what I've said above, I believe that the current state of affairs in Debian is consistant with the letter of the licensing of that software, and consistant with the spirit of their tradmark usage document. Changing the names of these packages to contain neither the substring mozilla nor the substring firefox would, in fact, hurt both Debian and Mozilla, not to mention what it does to the maintainer's morale. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Eric Dorland wrote: But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights that the user don't have. Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as Debian (or official Debian, or whatever it is you guys use). :-) When I said rights, I meant rights to the software in main. That's what Debian cares about. I should of been more clear. They do have concerns about the trustability of CAcert certs. I'm mostly convinced they're no worse than other CA's. What we have a problem with (in the context of including the cert in Firefox) is the fact that CAcert haven't been audited, so the risk of including them is unquantifiable. Please see the CAcert list for recent discussions on this topic. Can you please point me to the document where you went and verified that all your current CA's have been audited and met your CA policy? Eric Dorland wrote in another thread: Will the add the SPI root CA to their root CA list? It's pretty Debian specific, so I doubt it. There are two ways we could go about this. The first is for the MoFo to have a list of CAs who meet the CA policy[0] in all other ways except that they are too specific to go into the general Firefox build. These could then be included by any distributor at will. Here's another situation you might want to consider. What if Debian decided one of your CA's was not trustworthy and removed it? Would that be grounds for losing the trademark? The difficulty with that is that currently we don't have time to evaluate the requests of all the CAs requesting general distribution, let alone ones we aren't going to include ourselves. The second is for Debian to show us their policy on how they decide whether a CA is trustworthy, and we say yes, taking everything into account, that policy is OK with us and then we let you guys get on with it. But to attempt this, I need to see the policy :-) Frankly, when someone uses Debian, they're implicitly trusting our security decisions. We can root their boxes. I'm not eager to defer our decisions on what CA's we consider secure to the MoFo. Maybe Fumitoshi-san feels differently. [0] http://www.hecker.org/mozilla/ca-certificate-policy -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On 6/18/05, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're skipping the crucial point here. Under the publicly available licenses/policies, we *cannot* call it Firefox. The MoFo is offering us an agreement that allows us to use the mark. I think agreeing to this is against the spirit of DFSG #8, and sets a bad precedent (speaking of precedents, have we ever made such an agreement before to use a trademark?). I don't think so. Basically, as far as I know Debian hasn't coped yet with any of the foreseeable trademark problems, from Linux to MySQL. But as I think I have mentioned, the approach under discussion for the Mozilla trademarks is about the most free-software-friendly tactic I can imagine that still more or less preserves the legal forms. (Other people may have better imaginations than mine. :-) With that said, I definitely think that an actual IP lawyer with a specialty in trademark should review the memorandum of trademark safety zone in its final form in order to keep the risk of unintended consequences down to a low roar. If you are not unalterably opposed to a trust but verify stance towards MoFo and DFSG #8, perhaps you could ask Gervase what exactly is on offer at this point, and run it past SPI's counsel before making any commitments. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Hi Eric, Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 14:45 -0400, Eric Dorland a crit : I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. If it's free, the project as a whole has already decided to be able to include it. For the rest, it's up to the maintainer to decide what is reasonable in his point of view. Apparently, you couldn't make up your mind and so you asked for other opinions. And you had plenty : Indeed, the most vocal (and rational) contributors seem to be saying these demands are reasonable. I'm still not convinced. Either you have no opinion and you should be following the majority because that's was the point of your request, or you have one and you should just follow you own decision. It looks like you have your opinion and you based your opinion with respect to point #8 of the DFSG. We explained you that your reasoning was ill-advised because DFSG stands for DF Software G and not DF Trademark G. What can I say more ? If you decide using firefox is not reasonable, please rename the package and do whatever work you like with the renamed package. But let someone else (which has no problem with the MoFo trademark license) maintain a package named firefox ! Sometime the project as a whole has the last word on something because it is related to our basic texts. Sometimes the project as a whole has nothing to say and it's up to the maintainer to take the decision. And this case it's clearly your decision. Let me try another example. If, say, the Apache Foundation came to us and said, Sure the code is free, but that's our trademark you're using. It will cost you $5000 a year to use that trademark in Debian. Now we could easily afford this as a project, would we do it? I don't think we would do it, even though we could because a strict interpretation of the DFSG says trademarks don't matter. Clearly we would never accept such a deal. We're all open minded but we're not dumb. :-) The point I'm trying to make is that clearly not all trademark terms are reasonable. Their certainly are situations where we would find using the trademark unacceptable, even if the DFSG apparently says we can. Sure ! In the example you take with $5000 fees each year, the project would never accept to pay that on its own fund. But if we have a rich maintainer (or a sponsor) willing to pay that for us I'm pretty convinced we'd accept nevertheless because it's unrelated to the fact that it's free software. Is this Mozilla situation acceptable? I think it is, So end of discussion (but I think you mistyped ... :-)) I think the spirit of DFSG #8 is that Debian should not have rights that the user doesn't have in terms of the software we distribute. Yes, these are not copyrights rights, but they are still rights. And we don't agree on that. And it looks like several other people don't agree with you on that point. But this point of the discussion won't be resolved without a rewrite of the DFSG with the added clarification. In the mean time, assume your opinion and do whatever you feel is needed. But don't impose your interpretation to the whole project when clearly there's no consensus. Cheers, -- Raphal Hertzog Premier livre franais sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
We explained you that your reasoning was ill-advised because DFSG stands for DF Software G and not DF Trademark G. What can I say more ? I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The S in DFSG does not stand for copyright, it stands for software. Software usually contains copyrighted code, and sometimes it also contains trademarked names or images. You can argue that the DFSG does not apply to trademark restrictions, but I hope you have a better reason than S stands for Copyright. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
17.06.2005 pisze Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The S in DFSG does not stand for copyright, it stands for software. Software usually contains copyrighted code, and sometimes it also contains trademarked names or images. You can argue that the DFSG does not apply to trademark restrictions, but I hope you have a better reason than S stands for Copyright. You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. Jubal -- [ Miros/law L Baran, baran-at-knm-org-pl, neg IQ, cert AI ] [ 0101010 is ] [ BOF2510053411, makabra.knm.org.pl/~baran/, alchemy pany ] [ The Answer ] Any system that depends on reliability is unreliable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:54:40AM +0200, Miros/law Baran wrote: 17.06.2005 pisze Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The S in DFSG does not stand for copyright, it stands for software. Software usually contains copyrighted code, and sometimes it also contains trademarked names or images. You can argue that the DFSG does not apply to trademark restrictions, but I hope you have a better reason than S stands for Copyright. You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. That would be the part where the trademark holder tells you that you can't distribute modified versions. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
I've only been skimming this thread, so I fear this may have been said. What about: 1) rebrand mozilla-firefox 2) create a permanent transition package with the firefox name that depends on it 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox The description of the transition package should briefly explain what is happening, that the transition package merely depends on a rebranded/forked version of the Mozilla Firefox web browser. This way, you are using the TM term to refer to the correct product but substituting a rebrand seemlessly (without the kind of confusion that would run you afoul of TM law). Someone on debian-legal would have to consider whether having a binary named firefox is enough to create an issue. If it is, then I am happy to retract the suggestion. Don -- Don Bindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit : You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. That would be the part where the trademark holder tells you that you can't distribute modified versions. The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they are ready to give us this right because they trust us). Of course the right is revocable ... but that doesn't matter. When they decide to stop granting us this right, then we'll have to rename the package. Right now, it's not needed. Cheers, -- Raphal Hertzog Premier livre franais sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit : You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. That would be the part where the trademark holder tells you that you can't distribute modified versions. The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they are ready to give us this right because they trust us). After they first told us that we couldn't distribute modified versions, that was one of several outcomes of debian-legal's investigation into this matter, yes. There were several others, too. Oddly enough, I *do* know what happened. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Donald J Bindner writes: 2) create a permanent transition package with the firefox name that depends on it 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox Thereby attaching the name Firefox to something which is not pristine Mozilla code. This is exactly what it is being claimed we may not do without explicit permission[1]. [1] I doubt that trademark law reaches that far, but I am not a lawyer. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Friday 17 June 2005 17:08, Raphal Hertzog wrote: The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they are ready to give us this right because they trust us). Of course the right is revocable ... but that doesn't matter. When they decide to stop granting us this right, then we'll have to rename the package. Right now, it's not needed. aol/ The ironic thing is, even if we do rename, who is going to do the trademark search to prove that the new name we choose is not someone else's trademark who we do NOT have permission to use?
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit : You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. That would be the part where the trademark holder tells you that you can't distribute modified versions. The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they are ready to give us this right because they trust us). After they first told us that we couldn't distribute modified versions, that was one of several outcomes of debian-legal's investigation into this matter, yes. There were several others, too. Sorry Andrew, which investigation are you referring to? Which other outcomes? You've got some context there I'm not getting. Oddly enough, I *do* know what happened. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Raphal Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi Eric, Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 14:45 -0400, Eric Dorland a crit : I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. If it's free, the project as a whole has already decided to be able to include it. For the rest, it's up to the maintainer to decide what is reasonable in his point of view. Apparently, you couldn't make up your mind and so you asked for other opinions. And you had plenty : Indeed, the most vocal (and rational) contributors seem to be saying these demands are reasonable. I'm still not convinced. Either you have no opinion and you should be following the majority because that's was the point of your request, or you have one and you should just follow you own decision. So either I should do what I want or subjugate my will to the project? Clearly I have my own opinions, but I don't work in a vacuum. I wanted to know what the rest of the project thought to balance my decision against, that was the whole point of the thread. It's not so black-and-white. It looks like you have your opinion and you based your opinion with respect to point #8 of the DFSG. We explained you that your reasoning was ill-advised because DFSG stands for DF Software G and not DF Trademark G. What can I say more ? If you decide using firefox is not reasonable, please rename the package and do whatever work you like with the renamed package. But let someone else (which has no problem with the MoFo trademark license) maintain a package named firefox ! Sometime the project as a whole has the last word on something because it is related to our basic texts. Sometimes the project as a whole has nothing to say and it's up to the maintainer to take the decision. And this case it's clearly your decision. I think you're really stretching here and claiming your interpretations are shared by most of the project. Let me try another example. If, say, the Apache Foundation came to us and said, Sure the code is free, but that's our trademark you're using. It will cost you $5000 a year to use that trademark in Debian. Now we could easily afford this as a project, would we do it? I don't think we would do it, even though we could because a strict interpretation of the DFSG says trademarks don't matter. Clearly we would never accept such a deal. We're all open minded but we're not dumb. :-) The point I'm trying to make is that clearly not all trademark terms are reasonable. Their certainly are situations where we would find using the trademark unacceptable, even if the DFSG apparently says we can. Sure ! In the example you take with $5000 fees each year, the project would never accept to pay that on its own fund. But if we have a rich maintainer (or a sponsor) willing to pay that for us I'm pretty convinced we'd accept nevertheless because it's unrelated to the fact that it's free software. So you're saying Debian as a project is too cheap to pay for it itself, but if some rich benefactor did it would be alright? I don't what to say, that seems extremely contradictory. Is this Mozilla situation acceptable? I think it is, So end of discussion (but I think you mistyped ... :-)) I have really got to proofread more... I think the spirit of DFSG #8 is that Debian should not have rights that the user doesn't have in terms of the software we distribute. Yes, these are not copyrights rights, but they are still rights. And we don't agree on that. And it looks like several other people don't agree with you on that point. But this point of the discussion won't be resolved without a rewrite of the DFSG with the added clarification. In the mean time, assume your opinion and do whatever you feel is needed. But don't impose your interpretation to the whole project when clearly there's no consensus. Enjoy your rewrite of the DFSG. If it's anything like the views expressed in this mail, I'll want none of it. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:18:29AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: 1) rebrand mozilla-firefox 2) create a permanent transition package with the firefox name that depends on it 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox The description of the transition package should briefly explain what is happening, that the transition package merely depends on a rebranded/forked version of the Mozilla Firefox web browser. This way, you are using the TM term to refer to the correct product but substituting a rebrand seemlessly (without the kind of confusion that would run you afoul of TM law). I think it's a good compromise. I'd like to suggest: 4) make the program's branding depend on argv[0]. That way the behaviour of the firefox command and package don't change at all, but the name firefox is encapslated in a package which can be dropped completely (no debian permission anymore) or moved to non-free (the firefox maintainers decide the DFSG applies to trademarks.) Users will eventually notice the situation (read firefox's description or README.Debian.) Derived distribution which have modified iceweasel but haven't got the permission to call their own firefox yet just need to abstain distributing the firefox package. -- Jeremie Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:07:33PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:18:29AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: 1) rebrand mozilla-firefox 2) create a permanent transition package with the firefox name that depends on it 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox The description of the transition package should briefly explain what is happening, that the transition package merely depends on a rebranded/forked version of the Mozilla Firefox web browser. This way, you are using the TM term to refer to the correct product but substituting a rebrand seemlessly (without the kind of confusion that would run you afoul of TM law). I think it's a good compromise. I'd like to suggest: 4) make the program's branding depend on argv[0]. Do trademarks only apply to binaries, or to source also? A running firefox will prominently display the trademarked bits in question, but hey, the source being open for viewing is important here. Wouter van Heyst -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:10:34PM +0200, Wouter van Heyst wrote: 4) make the program's branding depend on argv[0]. Do trademarks only apply to binaries, or to source also? A running firefox will prominently display the trademarked bits in question, but hey, the source being open for viewing is important here. The source wouldn't need to include the trademarks under this setting. The firefox package would include these, as the name of the symlink, and maybe as a directory which would be accessed only when the program is invoked as firefox. -- Jeremie Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a license. That is correct, but (correct me if I'm wrong Gerv), but change would include such things as recompiling it. As I was saying earlier in the thread, what we'd probably do is say that they could make changes within the terms of the trademark policy - possibly the Community Edition rules, which allow for recompilation and limited change. We can certainly discuss the extent of such rights; what we can't agree to is giving them unlimited rights, or even rights as extensive as Debian's or Red Hat's or another trusted distributor's without them proving themselves worthy of such trust. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights that the user don't have. Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as Debian (or official Debian, or whatever it is you guys use). :-) They do have concerns about the trustability of CAcert certs. I'm mostly convinced they're no worse than other CA's. What we have a problem with (in the context of including the cert in Firefox) is the fact that CAcert haven't been audited, so the risk of including them is unquantifiable. Please see the CAcert list for recent discussions on this topic. Eric Dorland wrote in another thread: Will the add the SPI root CA to their root CA list? It's pretty Debian specific, so I doubt it. There are two ways we could go about this. The first is for the MoFo to have a list of CAs who meet the CA policy[0] in all other ways except that they are too specific to go into the general Firefox build. These could then be included by any distributor at will. The difficulty with that is that currently we don't have time to evaluate the requests of all the CAs requesting general distribution, let alone ones we aren't going to include ourselves. The second is for Debian to show us their policy on how they decide whether a CA is trustworthy, and we say yes, taking everything into account, that policy is OK with us and then we let you guys get on with it. But to attempt this, I need to see the policy :-) Gerv [0] http://www.hecker.org/mozilla/ca-certificate-policy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit : You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. That would be the part where the trademark holder tells you that you can't distribute modified versions. The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they are ready to give us this right because they trust us). After they first told us that we couldn't distribute modified versions, that was one of several outcomes of debian-legal's investigation into this matter, yes. There were several others, too. Sorry Andrew, which investigation are you referring to? Which other outcomes? You've got some context there I'm not getting. There have been multiple threads on debian-legal over the past couple of years on this issue, exploring it exhaustively (I don't believe *this* thread contains anything new or significant). The important ones are probably these: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg6.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00023.html But I'm just fishing from memory, I expect I missed some. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: Well I don't think DFSG #4 says the rename has to be easy, it just has to be possible. Yes. However, the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being forced to change content. Don Armstrong -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Jules Bean http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: Well I don't think DFSG #4 says the rename has to be easy, it just has to be possible. Yes. However, the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being forced to change content. Ummm, huh? If I legally change my name, I also have to change the name on my driver's license. If I change the name of my program, I also change all references to that name in program (if for no other reason, consistency). Is that really so unexpected? The DFSG didn't tell you to breathe either, I hope you can still figure out that you should do it :) -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being forced to change content. If I change the name of my program, I also change all references to that name in program (if for no other reason, consistency). You should change them when it makes sense to you. However, being forced to do so by the trademark license when it doesn't make sense to you is another thing entirely.[1] Imagine suddenly having to go and rip out every single reference to the name of a program, some of which could be intricately tied into the codebase; or a library that required you to rename all symbols bearing the name of the library, and thus change any symbols that the library exported. Don Armstrong 1: Many things that the DFSG allows are relatively insane; I'm sure we all have examples of code that should be outlawed (some of the code I've written definetly qualifies.) However, when the license restricts these types of modifications, the freedom of the license begins to come into question. -- This space for rent http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:47:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being forced to change content. If I change the name of my program, I also change all references to that name in program (if for no other reason, consistency). You should change them when it makes sense to you. However, being forced to do so by the trademark license when it doesn't make sense to you is another thing entirely.[1] Imagine suddenly having to go and rip out every single reference to the name of a program, some of which could be intricately tied into the codebase; or a library that required you to rename all symbols bearing the name of the library, and thus change any symbols that the library exported. ... which isn't covered by trademark law anyway, so could only be enforced by an over-reaching copyright license, which is non-free. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit : You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. That would be the part where the trademark holder tells you that you can't distribute modified versions. The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they are ready to give us this right because they trust us). After they first told us that we couldn't distribute modified versions, that was one of several outcomes of debian-legal's investigation into this matter, yes. There were several others, too. Sorry Andrew, which investigation are you referring to? Which other outcomes? You've got some context there I'm not getting. There have been multiple threads on debian-legal over the past couple of years on this issue, exploring it exhaustively (I don't believe *this* thread contains anything new or significant). The important ones are probably these: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg6.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00023.html But I'm just fishing from memory, I expect I missed some. You are correct. But I hope this time we can make some sort of decision as to what action, if any, we need to take. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Eric Dorland wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a license. That is correct, but (correct me if I'm wrong Gerv), but change would include such things as recompiling it. As I was saying earlier in the thread, what we'd probably do is say that they could make changes within the terms of the trademark policy - possibly the Community Edition rules, which allow for recompilation and limited change. We can certainly discuss the extent of such rights; what we can't agree to is giving them unlimited rights, or even rights as extensive as Debian's or Red Hat's or another trusted distributor's without them proving themselves worthy of such trust. Ok, that's interesting. It's somewhat more permissive than I had assumed. I'm not sure it really changes anything from our perspective though. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Please relax. The discussion is not whether we drop Firefox from the distro. This will not happen, Firefox will still be here for as long Even if I have followed that discussion from very far, I have noted that you do not plan this. But I noted Julien's suggestion to simply drop the thing and it made me react. Julien, I, and several French developers still have the project of setting up some legal existence for Debian here in France, so, well, we work together and work quite closely. So, when he posts such extremists views like some of those I have read, I feel my duty to react and bring in what I call real world bits. In my opinion, even renaming the package would be a kind of disappearance...but, as a matter of fact, and from what I've read so far, I'm just confident in your ability, as the package maintainer, to deal with things safely and intelligently. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need to look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take any package in main, modify it, and further redistribute it? If yes, then the package can remain in main, and is free; if not, then the package is not free. Our users have permission to modify it and further redistribute it *as long as they change the name*. That's a limitation we're willing to accept for ourselves - why should it not be free enough for our users? Unfortunatly, in the case of Firefox, we have to do much more than just change the name of the work/binary, which is really what DFSG 4 is getting at.[1] All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from the work, which is quite a bit different than merely chaging the name of the work. What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages don't use any of the trademarked images and logos? 1: As I'm sure you're aware, it's primarily a nod to TeX et al. and a compromise so TeX could be distributed. 2: Extra bonus points to whoever figures out what this actually means. No credit if you consider less than 3 jurisdictions. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from the work, What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages don't use any of the trademarked images and logos? If we don't use any trademarked images, logos, or phrases, what exactly are we talking about here? I'd hope there are more things at issue here than the name of the script that eventually calls another script that eventually calls the binary. [If that's all that we're discussing, I'd suggest just asking a low priority debconf question about installing a /usr/bin/mozilla-firefox symlink that links to the package in question, and rename the binary package.] Don Armstrong -- The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game. -- Sir Karl Popper _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_ 11 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 01:03 -0400, Eric Dorland a crit : The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via Gervase in this long running debate which he has continued to follow despite the criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. Obviously if they turn around in the future and say oh we hate your blah patch you can't use the name then we can /then/ make it a big issue and change the name to iceweasel and be happy. I honestly think this is unlikely though and to do so now would be not only be premature but be harmful to users and your/the project's relationship with Mozilla. Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our ca-certificates package. However I can't have Firefox use that as a root CA by default and still use the trademark: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.cacert/2752 This seems like a pretty unacceptable to me. Given the trademark license, you can just add the CA-Cert and wait until MoFo complains to you... if they decide to complain ! Another approach (which would be more respectful to MoFo) would be to ask them to add the CA certificate into upstream's list of trusted CA so that the whole issue becomes a non-issue for us. We're all reasonable people, if we add that CA cert it's because we trust them. Given our track of security consciousness I see no reason why MoFo wouldn't trust what we trust (that's even the reason why they made an exceptin). Third approach is to ask again for an exception concerning this change. Choose whatever you prefer. In any case it doesn't change anything to the status of the software ... Firefox with its original name is free software and should be included as-is within Debian. Furthermore I'm sure that you can avoid that problem by using a debconf question: Do you want to add the CA certs contained in CA-certificates in the list of CA trusted by Firefox ? We don't change the list of CA certs but we're letting the user change it on his own machine. And I suppose that this has always been possible... (it was just more difficult for the user) Cheers, -- Raphal Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozilla foundation is against DFSG #8? Why not? You have the right to modify the code whether or not it is in Debian. The license to the code is not specific to Debian so I don't believe that this contradicts the spirit of DFSG #8. The rights are the same for you as they are for users i.e. they have the right to go to Mozilla and prove they produce good enough software to use Mozilla's trademark and call it firefox just as you have. The license isn't specific to Debian therefore this satisfies that clause. The code license is not in question. The trademark license/policy is. Right, my point is that the important thing for downstream of Debian is that the code is free not what the name is or if it has to be changed. If we can keep the name that's good for our users though so we should. The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via Gervase in this long running debate which he has continued to follow despite the criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. Obviously if they turn around in the future and say oh we hate your blah patch you can't use the name then we can /then/ make it a big issue and change the name to iceweasel and be happy. I honestly think this is unlikely though and to do so now would be not only be premature but be harmful to users and your/the project's relationship with Mozilla. Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our ca-certificates package. However I can't have Firefox use that as a root CA by default and still use the trademark: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.cacert/2752 This seems like a pretty unacceptable to me. Hmm. That almost sets a precedent for stopping any changes they don't like via the blunt tool of the trademark license. Do they have the same problems with the SPI root certs? What are their reasons for this? Do they have the same concerns that you raise in #309564? Simon. -- UK based domain, email and web hosting ***/To infinity and beyond! /* http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ **/ /** [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ /*** Black Cat Networks / / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That there is such a hue and cry over rebranding Firefox in Debian indicates to me that it *is* a significant burden we would be (and are now) asking of our downstream users. Second, the real problems with rebranding are not with the technical work that has to happen, from the sound of it. They're with user recognition and the ability of users to find the right package for something they want to run. That *is* a significant issue, at least in my opinion, but Debian taking that hit doesn't do *anything* to help our downstream users. They still end up having to either take the same hit or now undo Debian work to get back to the name that their users will recognize. I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a license. Did I get the wrong end of the stick? Simon. -- * sl benj: mais il y a des thumbnails en 1600x1200 ;) * | | * * Brought to you by the letter J and the number 9 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Simon Huggins wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our ca-certificates package. However I can't have Firefox use that as a root CA by default and still use the trademark: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.cacert/2752 This seems like a pretty unacceptable to me. Hmm. That almost sets a precedent for stopping any changes they don't like via the blunt tool of the trademark license. I'd appreciate it if I was CCed on all parts of this discussion, as I'm not a member of debian-devel. Thanks to Simon for bringing me back in here. I'm sure you are aware of the significant risks to users associated with adding a root certificate to a browser store. However, having consulted carefully with my mozilla.org colleagues on this issue, it's not as black and white as I made out in the original post to the CACert list. Consequently, I would very much like to hear more about Debian's policy and procedures for vetting certificate authorities who wish to have their roots included in the Debian store. With regard to the blunt tool, the point of a trademark licence is to exercise some control over what gets labelled Firefox. If Debian were able to make arbitrary changes we didn't like and still use the trademark, there would be no licence! :-) And adding a new root cert is in an entirely different category to e.g. patching Firefox to put its profile somewhere which fits in with the Debian FHS. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Second, the real problems with rebranding are not with the technical work that has to happen, from the sound of it. They're with user recognition and the ability of users to find the right package for something they want to run. That *is* a significant issue, at least in my opinion, but Debian taking that hit doesn't do *anything* to help our downstream users. They still end up having to either take the same hit or now undo Debian work to get back to the name that their users will recognize. I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a license. Did I get the wrong end of the stick? No, I think you're right. This is my point: * If we do not rebrand Firefox, we benefit our users because they can still find the browser. We require our downstream packagers to do the work of rebranding (which is apparently not that difficult) and incur the hit on user recognition if they change the package further. * If we do rebrand Firefox, all of our users take the hit on user recognition, and in addition, all of our downstream packagers *also* take the hit on user recognition even if they didn't want to change the package at all. The only way they could avoid that is to both talk to MoFo themselves *and* undo the technical work of rebranding. I'm totally failing to see how rebranding Firefox makes life better for our users, *including* our downstream packagers. It looks to me like it makes it worse across the board. That being said, we absolutely should not allow the trademark issue to give MoFo any more of a veto on package changes than any other upstream would have. If we feel we need to make a change to improve the package for our users and MoFo disagrees with that change and says we can't use the trademark if we make it, we should make it, rebrand Firefox, and go on with our lives. Debian as a project already tries to work with upstream whenever possible, and certainly we should continue to do this, but I'm *extremely* uncomfortable with the idea of this trademark license being used as a stick to prevent Debian from producing the distribution we want to produce. The most disturbing thing I've seen in this entire thread so far (and I'm trying not to overreact, since I don't know the whole story) is hearing that Mozilla might veto root CA additions using the trademark liense as a stick. I think it's a horrible idea to rebrand Firefox out of worries of avoiding a Debian-specific deal, but if the branding ends up being used for things like supporting the evil Verisign monopoly against more reasonable ways of handling TLS certificates, it would be worth rebranding to me to avoid having to wait on those sorts of changes. On the other hand, if that statement was just a security concern and a request that MoFo be given time to vet new CA additions before they're just added downstream, that's probably quite reasonable and the invocation of the trademark license stick may have just been a poor choice of wording on their part. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from the work, What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages don't use any of the trademarked images and logos? If we don't use any trademarked images, logos, or phrases, what exactly are we talking about here? The term Firefox is what trademarked, and the only trademark still in the Debian package AFAIK. That's what we're talking about. I'd hope there are more things at issue here than the name of the script that eventually calls another script that eventually calls the binary. [If that's all that we're discussing, I'd suggest just asking a low priority debconf question about installing a /usr/bin/mozilla-firefox symlink that links to the package in question, and rename the binary package.] -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That there is such a hue and cry over rebranding Firefox in Debian indicates to me that it *is* a significant burden we would be (and are now) asking of our downstream users. Second, the real problems with rebranding are not with the technical work that has to happen, from the sound of it. They're with user recognition and the ability of users to find the right package for something they want to run. That *is* a significant issue, at least in my opinion, but Debian taking that hit doesn't do *anything* to help our downstream users. They still end up having to either take the same hit or now undo Debian work to get back to the name that their users will recognize. I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a license. That is correct, but (correct me if I'm wrong Gerv), but change would include such things as recompiling it. Did I get the wrong end of the stick? -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 01:03 -0400, Eric Dorland a crit : The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via Gervase in this long running debate which he has continued to follow despite the criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. Obviously if they turn around in the future and say oh we hate your blah patch you can't use the name then we can /then/ make it a big issue and change the name to iceweasel and be happy. I honestly think this is unlikely though and to do so now would be not only be premature but be harmful to users and your/the project's relationship with Mozilla. Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our ca-certificates package. However I can't have Firefox use that as a root CA by default and still use the trademark: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.cacert/2752 This seems like a pretty unacceptable to me. Given the trademark license, you can just add the CA-Cert and wait until MoFo complains to you... if they decide to complain ! Ummm, did you read the thread? It was pretty clear they would not find it acceptable. Another approach (which would be more respectful to MoFo) would be to ask them to add the CA certificate into upstream's list of trusted CA so that the whole issue becomes a non-issue for us. We're all reasonable people, if we add that CA cert it's because we trust them. Given our track of security consciousness I see no reason why MoFo wouldn't trust what we trust (that's even the reason why they made an exceptin). Will the add the SPI root CA to their root CA list? It's pretty Debian specific, so I doubt it. Third approach is to ask again for an exception concerning this change. Choose whatever you prefer. In any case it doesn't change anything to the status of the software ... Firefox with its original name is free software and should be included as-is within Debian. Furthermore I'm sure that you can avoid that problem by using a debconf question: Do you want to add the CA certs contained in CA-certificates in the list of CA trusted by Firefox ? We don't change the list of CA certs but we're letting the user change it on his own machine. And I suppose that this has always been possible... (it was just more difficult for the user) Cheers, -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozilla foundation is against DFSG #8? Why not? You have the right to modify the code whether or not it is in Debian. The license to the code is not specific to Debian so I don't believe that this contradicts the spirit of DFSG #8. The rights are the same for you as they are for users i.e. they have the right to go to Mozilla and prove they produce good enough software to use Mozilla's trademark and call it firefox just as you have. The license isn't specific to Debian therefore this satisfies that clause. The code license is not in question. The trademark license/policy is. Right, my point is that the important thing for downstream of Debian is that the code is free not what the name is or if it has to be changed. If we can keep the name that's good for our users though so we should. But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights that the user don't have. The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via Gervase in this long running debate which he has continued to follow despite the criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. Obviously if they turn around in the future and say oh we hate your blah patch you can't use the name then we can /then/ make it a big issue and change the name to iceweasel and be happy. I honestly think this is unlikely though and to do so now would be not only be premature but be harmful to users and your/the project's relationship with Mozilla. Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our ca-certificates package. However I can't have Firefox use that as a root CA by default and still use the trademark: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.cacert/2752 This seems like a pretty unacceptable to me. Hmm. That almost sets a precedent for stopping any changes they don't like via the blunt tool of the trademark license. It is worrying. Do they have the same problems with the SPI root certs? What are their reasons for this? Do they have the same concerns that you raise in #309564? I asked the exact same question about the SPI root certs, and if read the whole thread you'll see he has the same problems. They're worried about compromised root certs, which is a valid concern. But that doesn't make their decisions right and ours wrong. They do have concerns about the trustability of CAcert certs. I'm mostly convinced they're no worse than other CA's. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
El Jueves 16 Junio 2005 18:11, Russ Allbery escribi: [snip] That being said, we absolutely should not allow the trademark issue to give MoFo any more of a veto on package changes than any other upstream would have. If we feel we need to make a change to improve the package for our users and MoFo disagrees with that change and says we can't use the trademark if we make it, we should make it, rebrand Firefox, and go on with our lives. Debian as a project already tries to work with upstream whenever possible, and certainly we should continue to do this, but I'm *extremely* uncomfortable with the idea of this trademark license being used as a stick to prevent Debian from producing the distribution we want to produce. The most disturbing thing I've seen in this entire thread so far (and I'm trying not to overreact, since I don't know the whole story) is hearing that Mozilla might veto root CA additions using the trademark liense as a stick. I think it's a horrible idea to rebrand Firefox out of worries of avoiding a Debian-specific deal, but if the branding ends up being used for things like supporting the evil Verisign monopoly against more reasonable ways of handling TLS certificates, it would be worth rebranding to me to avoid having to wait on those sorts of changes. On the other hand, if that statement was just a security concern and a request that MoFo be given time to vet new CA additions before they're just added downstream, that's probably quite reasonable and the invocation of the trademark license stick may have just been a poor choice of wording on their part. Hi! While I've been actively supporting to don't rename Firefox during all the thread (because of the reason explained there), I definitely DO support to rename it if keeping the original name means that we loose the ability to make some kind of changes to the package, and specifically I support to rename it if Eric Dorland (as maintaner) doesn't feel free enough to modify the package when appropiate (as in that example of CA additions). Until the moment, I thought all the time that MoFo was trusting Debian and therefore we were allowed to make any changes we considered appropiate. Anyway, I'd like bring again the Debian example that I wrote and nobody replied. I was not joking. Consider: What happens if tomorrow I start redistributing a modifyed Debian version (only bugfixes; of course, I will decide what bugs are for me...) and I call it Debian GNU/Linux Sarge 3.1? Will I have a trademark issue with SPI? Almost for sure, I'll have a problem with SPI and the Debian trademark. If the criteria expressed by some in this thread is true, we ** should rename Debian ** because we are using a right that our users can't use (we can ship Debian with the name Debian because we are Debian, so it it is a special right that our users can't access). I think this is totally absurd and illustrates that trademarks have nothing to do with software freedom, and we should accept this kind of name limitations. Regards, Csar
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:50:44PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimares wrote: Does the opposite make it worse? I think so. IMHO it makes no difference at all. The normal, regular, I-dont-read-debian-mailing-lists folk install the Gnome Desktop or the KDE Desktop tasks, see the Web Browser icon, double-click it and voila. As long as it works (and as long as they can install the Macromedia plugins), they don't care. The rest of the world knows Debian renamed Firefox as Iceweasel to escape Mozilla Foundation's arcane trademark license. I don't think it's arcane. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, which Debian itself has done in the past (TrustedDebian - Adamantix) You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you either rename it to something else or get permission to call it firefox. Doesn't sound non-free to me. Please explain to me why it's alright to get special permission to use a trademark but not ok for a software license? DFSG#8 has regularly been interpreted as meaning that if a software license isn't free, it can't be made free just by giving Debian additional rights. This keeps us honest, by eliminating any incentive proprietary software authors might have to create a market for themselves by making a deal with Debian. Right, I don't see how the issue is really that separate when it comes to trademarks. They're making a deal with us so that we will promote their brand. How is that honest? But if the software is already free, then giving additional permissions to one group over another doesn't make it non-free. Is firefox Free Software prior to giving Debian permission to use the trademark? Yes, it is: even considering the trademark license, DFSG #4 says that authors may require people modifying the software to use a distinguishing name or version number. (For name here I think it's reasonable to read marks as well.) Therefore, without the trademark exemption, firefox is already free; so granting Debian special permission to *not* change the name/marks/version doesn't suddenly make it non-free. I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. Let me try another example. If, say, the Apache Foundation came to us and said, Sure the code is free, but that's our trademark you're using. It will cost you $5000 a year to use that trademark in Debian. Now we could easily afford this as a project, would we do it? I don't think we would do it, even though we could because a strict interpretation of the DFSG says trademarks don't matter. The point I'm trying to make is that clearly not all trademark terms are reasonable. Their certainly are situations where we would find using the trademark unacceptable, even if the DFSG apparently says we can. Is this Mozilla situation acceptable? I think it is, I think the spirit of DFSG #8 is that Debian should not have rights that the user doesn't have in terms of the software we distribute. Yes, these are not copyrights rights, but they are still rights. There's no freeness issue here, just one of convenience to people who want to modify the Debian firefox packages and redistribute them. I imagine that's a rather small field, all things considered; is it really better to leave the vast majority of users confused about the absence of firefox in the distro, just to maintain some sort of branding solidarity with those few Debian derivatives that aren't even *using* our pristine .debs? -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:00:17PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights that the user don't have. We are only concerned with the rights that apply to the software, not the name. The users have all of the same rights to the software that Debian has. How many times does this need to be said? --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:23:39PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Where possible, sure. But principles doesn't mean the rules should be exactly the same. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the rules should necessarily be the same. But I am of the opinion that the spirit of DFSG #8 should apply. To trademarks? Why? I don't see why that would be necessary, or even a good idea; but I'm sure I can be convinced given good arguments. It's a question of fairness, which I think is embodied by DFSG #8. We're getting this offer from MoFo because, I think, we are Debian. We're big and we're cool, there's no denying it :) But other entities, equally deserving of the trademark usage from a quality standpoint won't get it because MoFo doesn't care about them. Is that a given, or is that a theory? If it's a given, I agree with you. If it's a theory, you should find out whether it's true. If it's not, there's no problem. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from the work, What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages don't use any of the trademarked images and logos? If we don't use any trademarked images, logos, or phrases, what exactly are we talking about here? The term Firefox is what trademarked, and the only trademark still in the Debian package AFAIK. That's what we're talking about. Then that would be a MoFo trademark that is possibly used in a manner [not] consistent with trademark law. If that was the case, it would be a mark that would have to be expunged from the work. My main point here seems to have been lost: I am merely pointing out that the changes required are far more extensive than the renaming of a binary|script|package, but appear to involve substantial branding changes throughout the package; this seems to be a bit more extensive than the minor restriction that DFSG 4 allows. Don Armstrong -- ...Yet terrible as UNIX addiction is, there are worse fates. If UNIX is the heroin of operating systems, then VMS is barbiturate addiction, the Mac is MDMA, and MS-DOS is sniffing glue. (Windows is filling your sinuses with lucite and letting it set.) You owe the Oracle a twelve-step program. --The Usenet Oracle http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Jun 16, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. Let me try Good. This was not obvious at all by reading your precedent postings. another example. If, say, the Apache Foundation came to us and said, Sure the code is free, but that's our trademark you're using. It will cost you $5000 a year to use that trademark in Debian. Now we could easily afford this as a project, would we do it? I don't think we would do it, even though we could because a strict interpretation of the DFSG says trademarks don't matter. We would quickly tell them to FOAD, because it's a request that everybody would agree is unreasonable. The point I'm trying to make is that clearly not all trademark terms are reasonable. Sure. And the point most people here are trying to make is that they consider the MF demands reasonable and acceptable for Debian. Now that we agreed that trademarks are not forbidden by the DFSG, if you really feel strongly about the need for users of a totally unrestricted firefox package, why don't you build it as well? Then users and custom distributions would be able to choose the one which better suits their needs. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:23:39PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Where possible, sure. But principles doesn't mean the rules should be exactly the same. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the rules should necessarily be the same. But I am of the opinion that the spirit of DFSG #8 should apply. To trademarks? Why? I don't see why that would be necessary, or even a good idea; but I'm sure I can be convinced given good arguments. It's a question of fairness, which I think is embodied by DFSG #8. We're getting this offer from MoFo because, I think, we are Debian. We're big and we're cool, there's no denying it :) But other entities, equally deserving of the trademark usage from a quality standpoint won't get it because MoFo doesn't care about them. Is that a given, or is that a theory? If it's a given, I agree with you. If it's a theory, you should find out whether it's true. If it's not, there's no problem. It's of course theoretical. The Mozilla Foundation could be perfectly fair and even handed. Or they could just deal out trademarks to the big distros and not anyone else. The problem is we won't know. They're not laying out any guidelines (even imperfect ones) by which they're going to judge whether someone is deserving of using the trademark or not. So they can reject someone's petition merely because they're not large enough to be interesting (or any other reason), and hide behind: We didn't think their package was of high quality, and we can't refute them because we don't have a copy of the rulebook. Yes, setting up guidelines like this is hard, but not showing us the criteria they're going to be using isn't fair. I suspect that MoFo won't care enough to give a distro with 100 users a trademark agreement, it's not worth their while. And from their perspective, rightly so. But I think from Debian's point of view we shouldn't be buying into something like this. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
