Re: Mozilla and Trademarks
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> >I suggest that we make a standard policy that works for all and not for
> >debian only. Otherwise, I feel that there are problems with dfsg, since
> >we cannot grant the same rights to our users, that you granted us. But,
> >here I might be wrong and maybe others want to elaborate on this.
>
> We have to maintain the right of everyone to make arbitrary changes,
> otherwise the software's not free. So we have to therefore say "beyond a
> certain level of change, please remove our trademarks". The general
> policy on this is the Community Edition policy. However, I am suggesting
> that for Debian, we can go a bit further and perhaps allow official
> Debian releases more flexibility in what they change, because we have a
> level of confidence in the Debian process for producing quality software
> which we don't have in Joe Q. Public's process.
>
> Therefore, if the Community Edition changes aren't enough for Debian
> (and I can see that they might not be) then I can't see how we can avoid
> some sort of special arrangements. But I don't think this is a problem.
We understand, I think, that you'd like Debian to use your name in
some capacity and that you're willing to make some sort of special
arrangement to make that happen. we appreciate that. But I think there
are a few problems with that scenario. First off, we would not be the
only ones in the same situation. Other distributions are going to have
the same requirements as us, ie security patches and minor integration
patches. You will certainly have to strike similar deals with Fedora
(Fedora has some pretty major GTK integration patches in their tree I
believe).
So I think we would like something more formal and less specific to
Debian in your trademark license rather than some gentleman's
agreement we hash out just for us. Our feeling is the Community
Edition clause in your trademark license is not adequate for us and I
doubt it will be adequate for other distros (again, Fedora is a
perfect example). Currently the Iceweasel clause would be the one
Debian and others would fall under.
Now, if you'd prefer we didn't use your trademarks, that's fine. It
would be unfortunate for both Mozilla and Debian, since more and more
Linux Firefox users will probably use their distro's version. If it
comes to that it would be great if the projects: 1) Suggested
alternative (good and reminiscent) names 2) Provide an easy way to
build versions that use them (Like the --enable-branding configure
flag).
> >> > Another IMHO more important point is, that we need (they want us) to
> >> > add a statement to the thunderbird copyright file like:
> >>
> >>This is just not true. I said that Debian _may_ wish to make their
> >>users aware of the need to remove our trademarks if they modified the
> >>package, and suggested some wording. I am well aware of the pitfalls
> >>of mandating text to be placed here, there or everywhere.
> >
> >No, you said we _may_, but in parenthesis you stated "(and we would
> >request that they)".
>
> Indeed. _Request_. Not _require_.
>
> >>We would need to come to an arrangement about each package name (which
> >>may revolve around a naming scheme). But there's only three or four of
> >>them. And the statement about us "being a god for you" isn't true.
> >>We'd need to find some way to come to an accommodation - we don't want
> >>software hacked around to an arbitrary degree being labelled
> >>"Thunderbird", but obviously you need to make changes and security
> >>updates without delay or hassle.
> >
> >It's not only about security updates or minor integration changes.
> >Thunderbird and Firefox distributed in debian are actually of higher
> >quality than what you provide ;). For example the extension manager is
> >completely broken for global install and a patch for this (the patch the
> >debian fox and bird use) is just hanging around in bugzilla waiting for
> >a comment from ben for ages. Without this patch a distribution would be
> >nearly impossible for us.
>
> OK... so perhaps what we agree would include me giving some people a
> kick in order to get them to review and check in the major patches
> Debian adds. This would reduce the size of the difference, at least.
>
> But there's not necessarily a conflict here - in that if the patched
> version has gone through the official Debian procedure and is therefore
> of a certain level of quality, then that would probably be OK. The
> larger issue arises when Joe Q. Public wants to take the Debian tarball,
> recompile with super-duper gcc-pre-release -O6 optimisations ("Hey! it
> doesn't crash for over five minutes at a time now!") or with his new UI
> "improvement" patch which adds sixteen menu items and three toolbars,
> and redistribute the result, trademarks and all. What can be done about
> that sort of scenario?
>
> >My suggestion here would be to give your projects something lik
Re: Mozilla and Trademarks
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 07:49:15PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn wrote:
>
> > First, having such a trademark license establishes the Mozilla project
> > as an arbiter of package quality for a Debian package.
>
> Indeed. With all the caveats that you state, then yes, when it comes
> down to it, it does. It has to, in order for us to claim that we're
> maintaining our trademark as a mark of quality.
At least we agree on the intent; whether or not Debian can accept that is,
of course, a matter for discussion. But I'm glad to establish that bounding
point.
> > Second, with all due respect to the current Mozilla project, even if
> > we trust that they are reasonable enough, today, to not worry about
> > the first point, do we trust that *the holder of the trademark* will
> > be reasonable enough *for as long as we want to distribute the
> > package*? If it somehow got sold, well, the new TM holder could be
> > make life very unpleasant (OK, so this is true for any trademark, but
> > given Mozilla's heritage and the commercial interest in web browsers,
> > I have to consider it more of a risk that this might happen for them,
> > than for JoeBob's AlienKiller game).
>
> Again, a fair point. Although the impact of this event is arguably less
> than the same issue with a code licence. After all, if the code licensor
> (e.g. UWash) goes bad on you, that's the end of the package. If the
> trademark licensor goes bad, you just need to make some modifications to
> the package. (There may be issues with the actual package name here, but
> let's leave that for now.) Said modifications are pretty easy to make in
> our case (Netscape makes them, for example, to rebrand.)
The impact is, indeed, less; the worst case of a copyright license produces
an undistributable package, while the worst case with a trademark (unless
it is somehow tied into other bits) is that we have to purge any relevant
pieces of the package, which may, or may not, render the rest of it "not
terribly useful" (in the case of Mozilla, it seems likely to remain quite
useful, even if that purge could involve a fair bit of effort).
> > Third, to be honest, while I appreciate (and, in fact, am flattered
> > by) the implication that Mr. Markham, and presumably some significant
> > portion of the rest of the Mozilla project,
>
> Well, I speak for myself, insofar as I'm permitted discretion to
> negotiate on trademark issues. I don't speak for any other named people
> in the project in this matter :-)
So noted.
> > feel that Debian's QA track record is
> > sufficiently good to allow us some amount of extra leeway in the
> > question of quality packages, it smacks of a Debian-specific license,
> > something which is explicitly forbidden by the DFSG.
>
> Is DFSG 8 actually a problem here?
>
> "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."
>
> Is it understood that this applies to all rights which go with the
> program, and not just copyrights? Even if it is, distribution outside
> the Debian system with the trademarks attached would still have to
> conform to all applicable laws, including trademark law - although it's
> not Debian's responsibility to enforce that. In other words,
> distribution both inside and outside of Debian would require equally a
> trademark agreement.
I think the key here is the 'Guidelines' part. Personally, I take a
fairly broad interpretation of what "rights" must be available to those
we distribute to, though it must, of course, always be bounded by common
sense. However, the intent of DFSG #8 is that I, as a member of Debian,
can hand my housemate, a Debian user, a copy of the full distribution, and
he can turn around and do anything with it that the Debian Project did in
the first place - including "make modifications to packages", "establish
a bug tracking service", "translate package names", "compile for other
architectures"... whatever he wants to do, within the same bounds that we
as a project operate.
If there are concrete terms which allow the use of a trademark ("you must
pass this test suite", "you must hop on one foot for 2 hours a day", "your
first name must be Fred") which the project can reasonably meet, and expect
it's users to meet (in practice, this strikes down cases 2 and 3; expensive
test suites will probably strike down 1, but free ones probably wouldn't),
then it isn't likely to be an issue.
While the Community variant appears to provide this to others on the same
grounds that we get it, it runs up against the question of "are we willing
to abide by those terms?". If yes, great, DFSG #8 is satisfied; if not,
any rights given to
Re: Mozilla and Trademarks
Scripsit Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is DFSG 8 actually a problem here? > "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." > Is it understood that this applies to all rights which go with the > program, and not just copyrights? It is commonly understood to include all the rights that we (on that particular day of the week) deem necessary to pass the other points of the DFSG. In particular, the DFSG as such is not exclusively about copyright, though copyright is usually the most likely legal instrument that can cause users to be denied the rights guaranteed in the DFSG. (Patents are number 2, but they have to be handled specially because most of them are bogus and/or not actively enforced). Interpreting DSFG #8 fully literally leads to the ridiculous situation that an upstream author could force us to remove a package by declaring, "You, the user, may copy and/or distribute this program under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2. As a special exception you are also allowed to distribute binaries without source, but only as part of official Debian GNU/Linux mirrors or media images". so it has to be applied with a bit of discretion and common sense. In the case of Mozilla software, I understand that the trademarks in question are sprinkled fairly liberally throughout the source code, to the degree where it would be significantly more onerous for a user to remove them when he wants to modify the source, than it would be for a Debian developer to just modify the source under some kind of understanding with you. I don't think we can sneak that past DFSG #8 with our conscience unscratched. > Even if it is, distribution outside the Debian system with the > trademarks attached would still have to conform to all applicable > laws, including trademark law - although it's not Debian's > responsibility to enforce that. We don't have any responsibility *to you* to enforce trademark on our users, no. But we have a responsibility to *our users* to not distribute something to them that *they* cannot change easily in a legal way. > In other words, distribution both inside and outside of Debian would > require equally a trademark agreement. Yes, but this creates a direct conflict with the spirit embedded in DSFG #8. As you point out, if *we* find that for doing our business of packaging and redistributing the software (in whatever form we choose to redistribute it) we need to negotiate a trademark agreement, then *our users* will need it equally if they choose to do the same thing as we do. And the basic principle expressed by DFSG #8 is exactly that we'll select our software carefully exactly such that any user who wants to do the same thing as we do *will not* need to negotiate any agreements with people upstream of us. FWIW, I too think we're headed for iceweasel here. Not because we ourselves are planning or wishing to lower the quality of our packages below the quality expected by Mozilla, but because we're adamant about defending the right of our users to do so. We might, additionally, want to provide a "firefox" package in non-free which is empty and does nothing else than depending on "iceweasel", to give people with non-free in sources.list the benefit of "apt-get install firefox" (but of course this can only happen if the Mozilla people are okay with it, because installing any web browser in response to "apt-get install firefox" will certainly be covered by their trademark). This package might additionally provide a /usr/bin/firefox symlink, but my immediate suspicion is that such a symlink can be provided by iceweasel - and our users' evil mutated iceweasels - without running afoul of Mozilla's trademark rights. -- Henning Makholm "Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation which is different from that which the user had in mind."
Re: Mozilla and Trademarks
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 07:49:15PM +, Gervase Markham wrote: > Again, a fair point. Although the impact of this event is arguably less > than the same issue with a code licence. After all, if the code licensor > (e.g. UWash) goes bad on you, that's the end of the package. Only for non-free licenses. Trademarks are slightly different, because the laws are different. [There's no "license" as such.] -- Raul
Re: Mozilla and Trademarks
Joel Aelwyn wrote: > First, having such a trademark license establishes the Mozilla project > as an arbiter of package quality for a Debian package. Indeed. With all the caveats that you state, then yes, when it comes down to it, it does. It has to, in order for us to claim that we're maintaining our trademark as a mark of quality. > Second, with all due respect to the current Mozilla project, even if > we trust that they are reasonable enough, today, to not worry about > the first point, do we trust that *the holder of the trademark* will > be reasonable enough *for as long as we want to distribute the > package*? If it somehow got sold, well, the new TM holder could be > make life very unpleasant (OK, so this is true for any trademark, but > given Mozilla's heritage and the commercial interest in web browsers, > I have to consider it more of a risk that this might happen for them, > than for JoeBob's AlienKiller game). Again, a fair point. Although the impact of this event is arguably less than the same issue with a code licence. After all, if the code licensor (e.g. UWash) goes bad on you, that's the end of the package. If the trademark licensor goes bad, you just need to make some modifications to the package. (There may be issues with the actual package name here, but let's leave that for now.) Said modifications are pretty easy to make in our case (Netscape makes them, for example, to rebrand.) > Third, to be honest, while I appreciate (and, in fact, am flattered > by) the implication that Mr. Markham, and presumably some significant > portion of the rest of the Mozilla project, Well, I speak for myself, insofar as I'm permitted discretion to negotiate on trademark issues. I don't speak for any other named people in the project in this matter :-) > feel that Debian's QA track record is > sufficiently good to allow us some amount of extra leeway in the > question of quality packages, it smacks of a Debian-specific license, > something which is explicitly forbidden by the DFSG. Is DFSG 8 actually a problem here? "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." Is it understood that this applies to all rights which go with the program, and not just copyrights? Even if it is, distribution outside the Debian system with the trademarks attached would still have to conform to all applicable laws, including trademark law - although it's not Debian's responsibility to enforce that. In other words, distribution both inside and outside of Debian would require equally a trademark agreement. > After all, "our users" can and > do include people making other distributions (just look at the CDD > stuff). If we, as Debian, can do something that our users can't, with > the software in our archive, then it can go, at best, into non-free. True again - there are certainly practical difficulties here with Debian-based distributions, all of which would probably need their own trademark licence if they wanted to modify before redistribution. > Now, again, I don't > think that this really needs to happen; I think we should either abide > by the available licenses (possibly including one not yet written, but > publically useable, if that was what Mr. Markham was implying could be > done and I misunderstood it), or go the iceweasel route, rather than > sticking things into non-free, which would just be silly when there > are two free alternatives (even if we end up deciding that one of them > doesn't meet our needs). Agreed - non-free is not the right way to go here. Gerv
Re: Mozilla and Trademarks
I'm going to reply, in some sense, to Gervase Markham's message, but it is in more of a general vein, rather than a point by point discussion. Still my thoughts on the same basic topics, though. While I appreciate Mr. Markham's efforts, and in fact I don't disagree with what I believe are his views overall (that it would be possible, and even a good thing from the Mozilla project's point of view, for Debian to use something along the general lines of the Community Edition standards, possibly with some additional flexibility), and I have no deep and abiding interest in either doing so, or going the iceweasel route, I suspect that the latter may be the only practical answer for a couple of reasons. First, having such a trademark license establishes the Mozilla project as an arbiter of package quality for a Debian package. Any failure to meet these standards, in their sole review, opens the door to allow them to require us to rename the package and strip all trademarks. I am not implying that they would do so lightly, or wouldn't talk to us first to try to resolve it, here; if I thought that was likely, I wouldn't be bothering with all of this, I'd just say iceweasel it. However, the fact that it is even possible is of some concern to me. It leads to some nasty pitfalls, such as "Is it within the trademark license to use the same package name for something that is completely *not* the software, and deliberately attempts to 'trick' users into installing other software when they ask for the Debian Thunderbird Community Edition (DTCE)?" (aka, "a transitional package"). We do have one potential pre-existing case (albeit not a strongly formed one, nor one in active public sight, yet) - the use of the NetBSD trademark under specifically transmittable permissions (IE, to our users), for Debian systems built on top of a kNetBSD kernel. The difference is that the NetBSD folks haven't asked for review powers beyond the right to prevent us from distributing something that would deface their trademark; their only requirement is that it be made clear that we aren't distributing "the NetBSD system", but rather, a Debian system with a NetBSD kernel/core. Even this is rather murky, and got run through SPI's counsel as far as I am aware. Second, with all due respect to the current Mozilla project, even if we trust that they are reasonable enough, today, to not worry about the first point, do we trust that *the holder of the trademark* will be reasonable enough *for as long as we want to distribute the package*? If it somehow got sold, well, the new TM holder could be make life very unpleasant (OK, so this is true for any trademark, but given Mozilla's heritage and the commercial interest in web browsers, I have to consider it more of a risk that this might happen for them, than for JoeBob's AlienKiller game). Even if it remains with the Mozilla project... who would have thought that RMS would have decided documentation doesn't need the same freedoms that software does, putting the FSF and Debian at odds over the question? Or that UWash would have come up with an extremely strange license interpretation years (IIRC) after the initial publication of Pine, in what appears to have been a desire to take the software into a restricted-modification state (oddly similar, in some ways, to what the Mozilla project wants to do, today)? Third, to be honest, while I appreciate (and, in fact, am flattered by) the implication that Mr. Markham, and presumably some significant portion of the rest of the Mozilla project, feel that Debian's QA track record is sufficiently good to allow us some amount of extra leeway in the question of quality packages, it smacks of a Debian-specific license, something which is explicitly forbidden by the DFSG. After all, "our users" can and do include people making other distributions (just look at the CDD stuff). If we, as Debian, can do something that our users can't, with the software in our archive, then it can go, at best, into non-free. Now, again, I don't think that this really needs to happen; I think we should either abide by the available licenses (possibly including one not yet written, but publically useable, if that was what Mr. Markham was implying could be done and I misunderstood it), or go the iceweasel route, rather than sticking things into non-free, which would just be silly when there are two free alternatives (even if we end up deciding that one of them doesn't meet our needs). Minor nit that may not even be true: if (and only if) we really can't name plugins, etc, "thunderbird-plugins-alienkiller", then it seems like one more reason to go the iceweasel route. Debian has a variety of naming policies among package suites, and almost all of them include the core package name *somewhere* (often at the front - libperl-*, netsaint-plugins-* a while back, etc). -- Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
Re: Mozilla and Trademarks
Alexander Sack wrote:
I suggest that we make a standard policy that works for all and not for
debian only. Otherwise, I feel that there are problems with dfsg, since
we cannot grant the same rights to our users, that you granted us. But,
here I might be wrong and maybe others want to elaborate on this.
We have to maintain the right of everyone to make arbitrary changes,
otherwise the software's not free. So we have to therefore say "beyond a
certain level of change, please remove our trademarks". The general
policy on this is the Community Edition policy. However, I am suggesting
that for Debian, we can go a bit further and perhaps allow official
Debian releases more flexibility in what they change, because we have a
level of confidence in the Debian process for producing quality software
which we don't have in Joe Q. Public's process.
Therefore, if the Community Edition changes aren't enough for Debian
(and I can see that they might not be) then I can't see how we can avoid
some sort of special arrangements. But I don't think this is a problem.
> Another IMHO more important point is, that we need (they want us) to
> add a statement to the thunderbird copyright file like:
This is just not true. I said that Debian _may_ wish to make their
users aware of the need to remove our trademarks if they modified the
package, and suggested some wording. I am well aware of the pitfalls
of mandating text to be placed here, there or everywhere.
No, you said we _may_, but in parenthesis you stated "(and we would
request that they)".
Indeed. _Request_. Not _require_.
We would need to come to an arrangement about each package name (which
may revolve around a naming scheme). But there's only three or four of
them. And the statement about us "being a god for you" isn't true.
We'd need to find some way to come to an accommodation - we don't want
software hacked around to an arbitrary degree being labelled
"Thunderbird", but obviously you need to make changes and security
updates without delay or hassle.
It's not only about security updates or minor integration changes.
Thunderbird and Firefox distributed in debian are actually of higher
quality than what you provide ;). For example the extension manager is
completely broken for global install and a patch for this (the patch the
debian fox and bird use) is just hanging around in bugzilla waiting for
a comment from ben for ages. Without this patch a distribution would be
nearly impossible for us.
OK... so perhaps what we agree would include me giving some people a
kick in order to get them to review and check in the major patches
Debian adds. This would reduce the size of the difference, at least.
But there's not necessarily a conflict here - in that if the patched
version has gone through the official Debian procedure and is therefore
of a certain level of quality, then that would probably be OK. The
larger issue arises when Joe Q. Public wants to take the Debian tarball,
recompile with super-duper gcc-pre-release -O6 optimisations ("Hey! it
doesn't crash for over five minutes at a time now!") or with his new UI
"improvement" patch which adds sixteen menu items and three toolbars,
and redistribute the result, trademarks and all. What can be done about
that sort of scenario?
My suggestion here would be to give your projects something like a
codename (e.g. thunderbird codename freehawk) and explicitly grant the
right to use those codenames for derived works of thunderbird in your
trademark policy. The same would be true for mozilla, firefox and sunbird.
I don't think we want to do that, because we want to come to an
agreement with as many distributors as possible to use the names Firefox
and Thunderbird :-)
Gerv
Re: Mozilla and Trademarks
Hi Gerv, I wish you a happy new year. I was just composing a mail that would get you involved in this discussion, but apparently you came on your own ;). Fine. In addition I added Eric (the firefox maintainer) to CC since he is not subscribed to -legal. Gervase Markham wrote: I have to say that Alex's original "summary" of our position actually misrepresented our position in a number of ways. He actually posted the full mail I sent him[0] after the discussion finished; I would ask people to please read that to see what I actually said, and whether we can come to an arrangement which allows Debian to use the name "Thunderbird" for their version of our software. Yes, the initial post was not complete and I apologize for it. But hey, the discussion was far from over at that point. That's not strictly true - the Community Edition method was one suggestion of a way Debian could distribute our stuff, and still label it "Thunderbird". It's not the only way. I have a lot of time for Debian, and I'm happy to spend time negotiating something that works for both sides, if such a thing exists, rather than just pointing you at our standard policy. I suggest that we make a standard policy that works for all and not for debian only. Otherwise, I feel that there are problems with dfsg, since we cannot grant the same rights to our users, that you granted us. But, here I might be wrong and maybe others want to elaborate on this. > Another IMHO more important point is, that we need (they want us) to > add a statement to the thunderbird copyright file like: This is just not true. I said that Debian _may_ wish to make their users aware of the need to remove our trademarks if they modified the package, and suggested some wording. I am well aware of the pitfalls of mandating text to be placed here, there or everywhere. No, you said we _may_, but in parenthesis you stated "(and we would request that they)". > I think they want us to negotiate all package names individually. In > addition, they will be god for us (e.g. we add a patch, they have to > agree). [ Quoted from [3] ] We would need to come to an arrangement about each package name (which may revolve around a naming scheme). But there's only three or four of them. And the statement about us "being a god for you" isn't true. We'd need to find some way to come to an accommodation - we don't want software hacked around to an arbitrary degree being labelled "Thunderbird", but obviously you need to make changes and security updates without delay or hassle. It's not only about security updates or minor integration changes. Thunderbird and Firefox distributed in debian are actually of higher quality than what you provide ;). For example the extension manager is completely broken for global install and a patch for this (the patch the debian fox and bird use) is just hanging around in bugzilla waiting for a comment from ben for ages. Without this patch a distribution would be nearly impossible for us. So the question is: is the Mozilla Foundation's wish to have a level of quality control over things labelled with its trademark fundamentally incompatible with the Debian project's goals? If so, I'm afraid we're in Iceweasel land. But I hope that's not the case. Maybe someone else want to comment on this. From what the current discussion revealed, we are not able to distribute it, if you have some kind of veto on what changes are allowed and what not. P.S. If you do end up deciding to rename the packages, you don't want to use the -zilla postfix. The reason for this is explained under "Related Software" in [4]. That's the question I wanted to ask you. We started discussion about names that would be suitable for the trademark-free versions. Though, I suggested some, I think that _you_ should come up with _decent names_ (e.g. not lightningcrap, etc.). I would hope that you come up with names that are as carefully choosen as your trademarked ones. My suggestion here would be to give your projects something like a codename (e.g. thunderbird codename freehawk) and explicitly grant the right to use those codenames for derived works of thunderbird in your trademark policy. The same would be true for mozilla, firefox and sunbird. Cheers, Alexander -- GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `' Operating System http://www.jwsdot.com/ | `-http://www.debian.org/
Mozilla and Trademarks
The recent thread about Mozilla and trademarks on debian-legal has been drawn to my attention. For those who don't know me, I'm Gerv, and I'm currently the first point of contact for trademark and copyright licensing issues at Mozilla. I have to say that Alex's original "summary" of our position actually misrepresented our position in a number of ways. He actually posted the full mail I sent him[0] after the discussion finished; I would ask people to please read that to see what I actually said, and whether we can come to an arrangement which allows Debian to use the name "Thunderbird" for their version of our software. Specifically: > They basically want us to comply to the community editions terms as > described in [1]. That's not strictly true - the Community Edition method was one suggestion of a way Debian could distribute our stuff, and still label it "Thunderbird". It's not the only way. I have a lot of time for Debian, and I'm happy to spend time negotiating something that works for both sides, if such a thing exists, rather than just pointing you at our standard policy. So, please don't just read the standard policy, as Nathaniel did[2] and assume it would all apply to Debian. My original mail already included some suggested departures from it. > This implies that we do not use any term that reads: "Mozilla > Thunderbird". While true, this is misleading. We want to use the two words together "Mozilla Thunderbird" to label our own releases, but we'd very much like the Debian version to be of high quality, and to have a name including the word "Thunderbird". (This is why we asked for the package to be renamed from "mozilla-thunderbird", but suggested "thunderbird" as an alternative.) I suggested "Thunderbird for Debian" as an alternative UI name which Alex seemed to like. Andrew Suffield made a good point[1] about the substituting one trademark for another; maybe this isn't the best alternative name. Let's think of another. > Another IMHO more important point is, that we need (they want us) to > add a statement to the thunderbird copyright file like: This is just not true. I said that Debian _may_ wish to make their users aware of the need to remove our trademarks if they modified the package, and suggested some wording. I am well aware of the pitfalls of mandating text to be placed here, there or everywhere. > I think they want us to negotiate all package names individually. In > addition, they will be god for us (e.g. we add a patch, they have to > agree). [ Quoted from [3] ] We would need to come to an arrangement about each package name (which may revolve around a naming scheme). But there's only three or four of them. And the statement about us "being a god for you" isn't true. We'd need to find some way to come to an accommodation - we don't want software hacked around to an arbitrary degree being labelled "Thunderbird", but obviously you need to make changes and security updates without delay or hassle. So the question is: is the Mozilla Foundation's wish to have a level of quality control over things labelled with its trademark fundamentally incompatible with the Debian project's goals? If so, I'm afraid we're in Iceweasel land. But I hope that's not the case. Gerv P.S. If you do end up deciding to rename the packages, you don't want to use the -zilla postfix. The reason for this is explained under "Related Software" in [4]. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00342.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00345.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00389.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00343.html [4] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
