Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
> I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders  
> in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.

I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that they have
to go grubbing around inside the engine and cabin obliterating
the original trademarks. Is that right?

At the moment, it seems that Mozilla's trademark licence asks
us to do something like that, changing command names and other
"engine" parts. From what has been explained here, I suspect
MF is trying to assert more rights than it has.

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:

> > > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > > in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.

> > That is by far the most bizarre trademark restriction I've ever heard of,
> > and not at all in keeping with my understanding of US trademark law.  For
> > European trademark law, though, I would have to take your word for it.

> Why? If, for example, RUF  takes a
> Porsche, re-bores the engine, fits different turbos, changes the
> brakes and suspension, fits different cabin fittings &c, how can they
> then reasonably say that the vehicle *is* a Porsche? The vehicle *was*
> a Porsche, and there still is a lot of Porsche components in that
> vehicle, but the totality of the vehicle now encompasses something far
> greater than a Porsche.

You cannot claim the vehicle is a Porsche, because that would be false and
infringe the trademark because Porsche sells cars.  But US trademark law
protects your right to say that you *used* a Porsche; it'd doesn't follow
that leaving logos intact means you're claiming the vehicle is a Porsche.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Daniel Goldsmith]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:

> > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
> 
> That is by far the most bizarre trademark restriction I've ever heard of,
> and not at all in keeping with my understanding of US trademark law.  For
> European trademark law, though, I would have to take your word for it.

Why? If, for example, RUF  takes a
Porsche, re-bores the engine, fits different turbos, changes the
brakes and suspension, fits different cabin fittings &c, how can they
then reasonably say that the vehicle *is* a Porsche? The vehicle *was*
a Porsche, and there still is a lot of Porsche components in that
vehicle, but the totality of the vehicle now encompasses something far
greater than a Porsche.

Daniel.

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
> I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders  
> in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.

I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that they have
to go grubbing around inside the engine and cabin obliterating
the original trademarks. Is that right?

At the moment, it seems that Mozilla's trademark licence asks
us to do something like that, changing command names and other
"engine" parts. From what has been explained here, I suspect
MF is trying to assert more rights than it has.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> > crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> > are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes.

> Are you sure they are allowed?

Yes.

> > So there seems to be precedent that trademark law allows us to do the
> > same with Mozilla. ;)

> I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders  
> in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.

That is by far the most bizarre trademark restriction I've ever heard of,
and not at all in keeping with my understanding of US trademark law.  For
European trademark law, though, I would have to take your word for it.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:

> > > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > > in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.

> > That is by far the most bizarre trademark restriction I've ever heard of,
> > and not at all in keeping with my understanding of US trademark law.  For
> > European trademark law, though, I would have to take your word for it.

> Why? If, for example, RUF  takes a
> Porsche, re-bores the engine, fits different turbos, changes the
> brakes and suspension, fits different cabin fittings &c, how can they
> then reasonably say that the vehicle *is* a Porsche? The vehicle *was*
> a Porsche, and there still is a lot of Porsche components in that
> vehicle, but the totality of the vehicle now encompasses something far
> greater than a Porsche.

You cannot claim the vehicle is a Porsche, because that would be false and
infringe the trademark because Porsche sells cars.  But US trademark law
protects your right to say that you *used* a Porsche; it'd doesn't follow
that leaving logos intact means you're claiming the vehicle is a Porsche.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Daniel Goldsmith]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:

> > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
> 
> That is by far the most bizarre trademark restriction I've ever heard of,
> and not at all in keeping with my understanding of US trademark law.  For
> European trademark law, though, I would have to take your word for it.

Why? If, for example, RUF  takes a
Porsche, re-bores the engine, fits different turbos, changes the
brakes and suspension, fits different cabin fittings &c, how can they
then reasonably say that the vehicle *is* a Porsche? The vehicle *was*
a Porsche, and there still is a lot of Porsche components in that
vehicle, but the totality of the vehicle now encompasses something far
greater than a Porsche.

Daniel.

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> > crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> > are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes.

> Are you sure they are allowed?

Yes.

> > So there seems to be precedent that trademark law allows us to do the
> > same with Mozilla. ;)

> I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders  
> in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.

That is by far the most bizarre trademark restriction I've ever heard of,
and not at all in keeping with my understanding of US trademark law.  For
European trademark law, though, I would have to take your word for it.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:

> Hallo,
>
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
>> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
>
> DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose  
> license explicitly requires a change of the file name (in order to  
> maintain compatibility, BTW).

This is incorrect on more points than I can conveniently enumerate.
To hit a few easy ones:

* TeX does not require file name changes.  It's just that there are
  trademarks on the symbols \TeX and TeX, and those licenses involve
  passing the gruelling TeX regression tests.

* LaTeX doesn't require file name changes either; we had a big
  discussion with the LaTeX Project about this, and they were
  ultimately very nice about making and keeping the LPPL DFSG-free.

* DFSG 4 doesn't permit licenses which require file name changes.  It
  does permit licenses which require changes in the name of the work.
  The name of the work is strictly a social entity.  A file name is
  functional.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Claus Färber]

Hallo,

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.

DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose  
license explicitly requires a change of the file name (in order to  
maintain compatibility, BTW).

Claus
-- 
Connollystraße 8, D-80809 München, Tel. +49 700 CFAERBER, Fax +49 89 35709492
Mitterfeldstraße 20, D-83043 Bad Aibling - ICQ: 15468108 - www.faerber.muc.de
OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA  AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Claus Färber]

Hallo,

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes.

Are you sure they are allowed?

> So there seems to be precedent that trademark law allows us to do the
> same with Mozilla. ;)

I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders  
in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.


Claus
-- 
Connollystraße 8, D-80809 München, Tel. +49 700 CFAERBER, Fax +49 89 35709492
Mitterfeldstraße 20, D-83043 Bad Aibling - ICQ: 15468108 - www.faerber.muc.de
OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA  AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:

> Hallo,
>
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
>> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
>
> DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose  
> license explicitly requires a change of the file name (in order to  
> maintain compatibility, BTW).

This is incorrect on more points than I can conveniently enumerate.
To hit a few easy ones:

* TeX does not require file name changes.  It's just that there are
  trademarks on the symbols \TeX and TeX, and those licenses involve
  passing the gruelling TeX regression tests.

* LaTeX doesn't require file name changes either; we had a big
  discussion with the LaTeX Project about this, and they were
  ultimately very nice about making and keeping the LPPL DFSG-free.

* DFSG 4 doesn't permit licenses which require file name changes.  It
  does permit licenses which require changes in the name of the work.
  The name of the work is strictly a social entity.  A file name is
  functional.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Claus Färber]

Hallo,

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.

DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose  
license explicitly requires a change of the file name (in order to  
maintain compatibility, BTW).

Claus
-- 
Connollystraße 8, D-80809 München, Tel. +49 700 CFAERBER, Fax +49 89 35709492
Mitterfeldstraße 20, D-83043 Bad Aibling - ICQ: 15468108 - www.faerber.muc.de
OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA  AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Claus Färber]

Hallo,

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes.

Are you sure they are allowed?

> So there seems to be precedent that trademark law allows us to do the
> same with Mozilla. ;)

I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders  
in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.


Claus
-- 
Connollystraße 8, D-80809 München, Tel. +49 700 CFAERBER, Fax +49 89 35709492
Mitterfeldstraße 20, D-83043 Bad Aibling - ICQ: 15468108 - www.faerber.muc.de
OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA  AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Michael K. Edwards]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes.  So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
> allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;)

Well said.  We just can't claim that RJR Nabisco (or whoever owns the
Oreo mark these days) packaged them that way.

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes.  So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
> allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;)

Damn.  I want a Mozilla shake ...

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Michael K. Edwards]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes.  So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
> allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;)

Well said.  We just can't claim that RJR Nabisco (or whoever owns the
Oreo mark these days) packaged them that way.

Cheers,
- Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes.  So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
> allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;)

Damn.  I want a Mozilla shake ...

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:46:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > > Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.
> > Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco isn't called Oreo, but Oreo 
> > is still their trademark.

> As you have just shown above, you are able to use Oreo without an
> agreement with them. I suspect we are able to use Firefox without your
> agreement, as long as use is honest like proper use of a name.  MF may
> be seeking to establish an over-strict hold over their trademark by
> convincing Debian to make an unnecessary agreement.

Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes.  So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;)

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> > Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> > minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
> > of free software.
> I wasn't aware it was under review.

The SPI Debian trademark committee was announced in October 2003. I
am not sure of its current status.

The logo problem last appeared in SPI board meeting minutes in October 2004.
I believe Branden has asked for it to be discussed in February 2005.

> > You wrote this, but you claimed that it stops the default search
> > engine being changed away from my favourite invite spammers g**gl*
> > - is this a contradiction?
> No, at least not by my understanding of what makes code free (i.e. that 
> it's under a Free licence).

How does your trademark licence restricting permitted modifications
(essentially making part of your code invariant) qualify as a "Free
licence"? Is it free only because we can change the name and discard
the trademark licence?

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.
> Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco isn't called Oreo, but Oreo 
> is still their trademark.

As you have just shown above, you are able to use Oreo without an
agreement with them. I suspect we are able to use Firefox without your
agreement, as long as use is honest like proper use of a name.  MF may
be seeking to establish an over-strict hold over their trademark by
convincing Debian to make an unnecessary agreement.

> > On a purely pragmatic note, if it's fine to require the name is changed
> > for modified versions (like Debian's can be), it's not clear how to
> > do that at present - do we know if it is even possible? 
> Read back in the various threads on this topic - I've been explaining 
> how it's done.

Sorry, I thought you had only described how to make a build avoiding
use of the trademarked logos, but there are some places where the
name is hardwired? The trademarked name also appears in the supposedly
"non-trademark" logo graphics, it seems.

> > It feels like
> > Mozilla may be free but vexatious. Unsurprisingly, I'm a little grumpy at
> > them claiming they are behaving well while making more work for us. 
> I apologise that our trademark policy makes more work for you, but I do 
> think we are behaving well in that all of our software is still Free.

I am not convinced that it's free if your trademark is used. Fortunately,
the name is an avoidable problem. It's just a lot of work, so the
wondering is necessary.

> > Then
> > there are the claims that X or Y from MF will discuss it, even though
> > past attempts failed and it seems nothing has changed on MF's side.
> I'm here and I'm not going away.

Will you keep tracking discussions even if others from MF are involved?

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:46:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > > Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.
> > Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco isn't called Oreo, but Oreo 
> > is still their trademark.

> As you have just shown above, you are able to use Oreo without an
> agreement with them. I suspect we are able to use Firefox without your
> agreement, as long as use is honest like proper use of a name.  MF may
> be seeking to establish an over-strict hold over their trademark by
> convincing Debian to make an unnecessary agreement.

Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes.  So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;)

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> > Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> > minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
> > of free software.
> I wasn't aware it was under review.

The SPI Debian trademark committee was announced in October 2003. I
am not sure of its current status.

The logo problem last appeared in SPI board meeting minutes in October 2004.
I believe Branden has asked for it to be discussed in February 2005.

> > You wrote this, but you claimed that it stops the default search
> > engine being changed away from my favourite invite spammers g**gl*
> > - is this a contradiction?
> No, at least not by my understanding of what makes code free (i.e. that 
> it's under a Free licence).

How does your trademark licence restricting permitted modifications
(essentially making part of your code invariant) qualify as a "Free
licence"? Is it free only because we can change the name and discard
the trademark licence?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.
> Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco isn't called Oreo, but Oreo 
> is still their trademark.

As you have just shown above, you are able to use Oreo without an
agreement with them. I suspect we are able to use Firefox without your
agreement, as long as use is honest like proper use of a name.  MF may
be seeking to establish an over-strict hold over their trademark by
convincing Debian to make an unnecessary agreement.

> > On a purely pragmatic note, if it's fine to require the name is changed
> > for modified versions (like Debian's can be), it's not clear how to
> > do that at present - do we know if it is even possible? 
> Read back in the various threads on this topic - I've been explaining 
> how it's done.

Sorry, I thought you had only described how to make a build avoiding
use of the trademarked logos, but there are some places where the
name is hardwired? The trademarked name also appears in the supposedly
"non-trademark" logo graphics, it seems.

> > It feels like
> > Mozilla may be free but vexatious. Unsurprisingly, I'm a little grumpy at
> > them claiming they are behaving well while making more work for us. 
> I apologise that our trademark policy makes more work for you, but I do 
> think we are behaving well in that all of our software is still Free.

I am not convinced that it's free if your trademark is used. Fortunately,
the name is an avoidable problem. It's just a lot of work, so the
wondering is necessary.

> > Then
> > there are the claims that X or Y from MF will discuss it, even though
> > past attempts failed and it seems nothing has changed on MF's side.
> I'm here and I'm not going away.

Will you keep tracking discussions even if others from MF are involved?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Michael K. Edwards]

> It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
> a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
> upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
> Debian is not contractually bound not to do so).  See Prestonettes v.
> Coty 1924 ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/359.html ), which was still
> good law at least as of Enesco v. Price/Costco 1998 (
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9656571.html ).

In case I wasn't clear, this interpretation suggests (IANAL) that no
trademark license is required (in the US) to distribute under the name
"Mozilla Firefox in Debian Packaging" or the like.  Arguably, given
that _everything_ in Debian is built from (potentially heavily
patched) source by the Debian maintainer (or her upload sponsor or the
autobuilders), "mozilla-firefox_1.0+dfsg.1-2_i386.deb" is enough.

But putting Debian conspicuously in the short description and "as
packaged by the Debian Project" in the long description should be
ample.  (This statement should be reviewed carefully by someone who
understands the Coty standard better than I do; other things may be
needed to meet its criterion of non-confusion in a software context.) 
If this suffices, the Mozilla Foundation is probably better off this
way, since they aren't granting a trademark license and then leaving
QA up to the licensee (which is the sort of thing that compromises
one's trademark), nor are they forgoing any right to sue in the event
of actual harm.

I retract my earlier comment about how it's responsible of the Mozilla
Folks to put trademark language in the MPL (which was a factual error
anyway).  It's responsible for them to discuss it with packagers.  But
sometimes it's better to leave things out of the contract when the
statutory remedies and case law interpretations are satisfactory to
both parties.  Can anyone point to comparable precedents elsewhere?

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Michael K. Edwards]

> It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
> a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
> upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
> Debian is not contractually bound not to do so).  See Prestonettes v.
> Coty 1924 ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/359.html ), which was still
> good law at least as of Enesco v. Price/Costco 1998 (
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9656571.html ).

In case I wasn't clear, this interpretation suggests (IANAL) that no
trademark license is required (in the US) to distribute under the name
"Mozilla Firefox in Debian Packaging" or the like.  Arguably, given
that _everything_ in Debian is built from (potentially heavily
patched) source by the Debian maintainer (or her upload sponsor or the
autobuilders), "mozilla-firefox_1.0+dfsg.1-2_i386.deb" is enough.

But putting Debian conspicuously in the short description and "as
packaged by the Debian Project" in the long description should be
ample.  (This statement should be reviewed carefully by someone who
understands the Coty standard better than I do; other things may be
needed to meet its criterion of non-confusion in a software context.) 
If this suffices, the Mozilla Foundation is probably better off this
way, since they aren't granting a trademark license and then leaving
QA up to the licensee (which is the sort of thing that compromises
one's trademark), nor are they forgoing any right to sue in the event
of actual harm.

I retract my earlier comment about how it's responsible of the Mozilla
Folks to put trademark language in the MPL (which was a factual error
anyway).  It's responsible for them to discuss it with packagers.  But
sometimes it's better to leave things out of the contract when the
statutory remedies and case law interpretations are satisfactory to
both parties.  Can anyone point to comparable precedents elsewhere?

Cheers,
- Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Glenn Maynard]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:26:50PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The DFSG has a specific permission for authors to require name
> changes.  That's all Mozilla is doing here: requiring a change of name
> for their software.  

Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be changed.
That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.

(It's also beyond trademark law entirely, to my understanding.  I
pointed that out, but got no response.)


[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen]

"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
> quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors.  I'd
> still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
> by the upstream don't get downrated.  But in my view (IANADD either),
> attempts in contract language to interfere unreasonably with this
> liberty to use trademarks factually would violate the DFSG.

The DFSG has a specific permission for authors to require name
changes.  That's all Mozilla is doing here: requiring a change of name
for their software.  

I would like to see the DFSG changed to remove that clause, but I
doubt that will happen soon.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Michael K. Edwards]

It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so).  See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/359.html ), which was still
good law at least as of Enesco v. Price/Costco 1998 (
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9656571.html ).

I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors.  I'd
still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
by the upstream don't get downrated.  But in my view (IANADD either),
attempts in contract language to interfere unreasonably with this
liberty to use trademarks factually would violate the DFSG.

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:56:47PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark 
> >>policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group. 
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> >
> >Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> >minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
> >of free software.
> 
> I wasn't aware it was under review.

If we weren't so mind-numbingly inept at this sort of thing then we'd
have scrapped it long ago. Non-technical policy decisions in Debian
tend to take time in geological quantities. Goodness knows what would
replace it.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Glenn Maynard]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:26:50PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The DFSG has a specific permission for authors to require name
> changes.  That's all Mozilla is doing here: requiring a change of name
> for their software.  

Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be changed.
That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.

(It's also beyond trademark law entirely, to my understanding.  I
pointed that out, but got no response.)


[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen]

"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
> quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors.  I'd
> still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
> by the upstream don't get downrated.  But in my view (IANADD either),
> attempts in contract language to interfere unreasonably with this
> liberty to use trademarks factually would violate the DFSG.

The DFSG has a specific permission for authors to require name
changes.  That's all Mozilla is doing here: requiring a change of name
for their software.  

I would like to see the DFSG changed to remove that clause, but I
doubt that will happen soon.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Michael K. Edwards]

It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so).  See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/359.html ), which was still
good law at least as of Enesco v. Price/Costco 1998 (
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9656571.html ).

I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors.  I'd
still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
by the upstream don't get downrated.  But in my view (IANADD either),
attempts in contract language to interfere unreasonably with this
liberty to use trademarks factually would violate the DFSG.

Cheers,
- Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:56:47PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark 
> >>policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group. 
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> >
> >Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> >minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
> >of free software.
> 
> I wasn't aware it was under review.

If we weren't so mind-numbingly inept at this sort of thing then we'd
have scrapped it long ago. Non-technical policy decisions in Debian
tend to take time in geological quantities. Goodness knows what would
replace it.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

MJ Ray wrote:

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark 
policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group. 
Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]


Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
of free software.


I wasn't aware it was under review.


The Apache foundation have also rumbled about naming here, IIRC.
I think you're nicer, so far.


Thank you :-) I try.

Because part of the Mozilla Foundation's strategy to raise enough money 
to employ people to work on the code involves leveraging the name. I 
think this is great - because it's not a model which restricts the 
freedom of the code. [...]


You wrote this, but you claimed that it stops the default search
engine being changed away from my favourite invite spammers g**gl*
- is this a contradiction?


No, at least not by my understanding of what makes code free (i.e. that 
it's under a Free licence).


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

MJ Ray wrote:

Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.


I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.


Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco isn't called Oreo, but Oreo 
is still their trademark.



On a purely pragmatic note, if it's fine to require the name is changed
for modified versions (like Debian's can be), it's not clear how to
do that at present - do we know if it is even possible? 


Read back in the various threads on this topic - I've been explaining 
how it's done.



It feels like
Mozilla may be free but vexatious. Unsurprisingly, I'm a little grumpy at
them claiming they are behaving well while making more work for us. 


I apologise that our trademark policy makes more work for you, but I do 
think we are behaving well in that all of our software is still Free.



Then
there are the claims that X or Y from MF will discuss it, even though
past attempts failed and it seems nothing has changed on MF's side.


I'm here and I'm not going away.

Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark 
policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group. 
Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
of free software.
I wasn't aware it was under review.
The Apache foundation have also rumbled about naming here, IIRC.
I think you're nicer, so far.
Thank you :-) I try.
Because part of the Mozilla Foundation's strategy to raise enough money 
to employ people to work on the code involves leveraging the name. I 
think this is great - because it's not a model which restricts the 
freedom of the code. [...]
You wrote this, but you claimed that it stops the default search
engine being changed away from my favourite invite spammers g**gl*
- is this a contradiction?
No, at least not by my understanding of what makes code free (i.e. that 
it's under a Free licence).

Gerv
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

MJ Ray wrote:
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.
Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco isn't called Oreo, but Oreo 
is still their trademark.

On a purely pragmatic note, if it's fine to require the name is changed
for modified versions (like Debian's can be), it's not clear how to
do that at present - do we know if it is even possible? 
Read back in the various threads on this topic - I've been explaining 
how it's done.

It feels like
Mozilla may be free but vexatious. Unsurprisingly, I'm a little grumpy at
them claiming they are behaving well while making more work for us. 
I apologise that our trademark policy makes more work for you, but I do 
think we are behaving well in that all of our software is still Free.

Then
there are the claims that X or Y from MF will discuss it, even though
past attempts failed and it seems nothing has changed on MF's side.
I'm here and I'm not going away.
Gerv
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
> with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
> you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.

I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name. It may be an
acceptable extra restriction on the code which we can work with, like
the GPL, but it's still a restriction most don't place.

On a purely pragmatic note, if it's fine to require the name is changed
for modified versions (like Debian's can be), it's not clear how to
do that at present - do we know if it is even possible? It feels like
Mozilla may be free but vexatious. Unsurprisingly, I'm a little grumpy at
them claiming they are behaving well while making more work for us. Then
there are the claims that X or Y from MF will discuss it, even though
past attempts failed and it seems nothing has changed on MF's side.

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
> with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
> you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.

I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name. It may be an
acceptable extra restriction on the code which we can work with, like
the GPL, but it's still a restriction most don't place.

On a purely pragmatic note, if it's fine to require the name is changed
for modified versions (like Debian's can be), it's not clear how to
do that at present - do we know if it is even possible? It feels like
Mozilla may be free but vexatious. Unsurprisingly, I'm a little grumpy at
them claiming they are behaving well while making more work for us. Then
there are the claims that X or Y from MF will discuss it, even though
past attempts failed and it seems nothing has changed on MF's side.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Alexander Sack]

Nick Phillips wrote:



After all, the same kind of thing is fine for TeX, LaTeX, Apache



What are the exact restriction we have to follow when distributing apache? Where 
is this documented? Are those restrictions attached to the copyright file?



Cheers,

Alex

--
 GPG messages preferred. |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack  | : :' :  The  universal
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.jwsdot.com/  |   `-http://www.debian.org/

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Alexander Sack]

Nick Phillips wrote:
After all, the same kind of thing is fine for TeX, LaTeX, Apache
What are the exact restriction we have to follow when distributing apache? Where 
is this documented? Are those restrictions attached to the copyright file?

Cheers,
Alex
--
 GPG messages preferred. |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack  | : :' :  The  universal
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.jwsdot.com/  |   `-http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Nick Phillips]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:13:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote:

> > Because part of the Mozilla Foundation's strategy to raise enough money 
> > to employ people to work on the code involves leveraging the name. I 
> > think this is great - because it's not a model which restricts the 
> > freedom of the code. [...]
> 
> You wrote this, but you claimed that it stops the default search
> engine being changed away from my favourite invite spammers g**gl*
> - is this a contradiction?

It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.

After all, the same kind of thing is fine for TeX, LaTeX, Apache



Cheers,


Nick

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark 
> policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group. 
> Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]

Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
of free software.

The Apache foundation have also rumbled about naming here, IIRC.
I think you're nicer, so far.

> Because part of the Mozilla Foundation's strategy to raise enough money 
> to employ people to work on the code involves leveraging the name. I 
> think this is great - because it's not a model which restricts the 
> freedom of the code. [...]

You wrote this, but you claimed that it stops the default search
engine being changed away from my favourite invite spammers g**gl*
- is this a contradiction?

-- 
MJR/slef

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

Francesco Poli wrote:

I'm no expert in fund-raising strategies: could you please explain what
you mean?
How can MoFo raise funds by preventing other people from calling
"Mozilla Firefox" a distributed modified version of its XUL-based web
browser?


One example is that we have a deal with Google such that they are the 
default search and on the default home page in Mozilla Firefox. I 
suspect (and I wasn't involved in negotiating it, so can freely 
speculate) that we would probably not have got that deal if we couldn't 
guarantee that all the builds we distribute and publicise would have 
Google as the default search.


Google are happy to pay to ride the wave of publicity we've managed to 
generate for Firefox. But they'd be less happy to pay if we couldn't 
guarantee product quality, or we couldn't guarantee their placement. We 
do both using the trademarks.


(Note: I'm not certain of the exact terms, so I don't know whether the 
deal is linked to all "Mozilla Firefox" builds or all "Firefox" builds. 
I know the Community Edition terms for using "Firefox" don't let you 
change the default search engine.)


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:43:48 + Gervase Markham wrote:

> Alexander Sack wrote:
[...]
> > What I am trying to say is that mozilla is far too eager in
> > enforcing their trademarks. I hope this is because you just think
> > this is needed by law.
> > I hope this is not because you really believe it helps the overall 
> > purpose or will maximize the value of your brand.
> 
> We believe it helps the overall purpose in that it helps fund people
> to work on the code.

I'm no expert in fund-raising strategies: could you please explain what
you mean?
How can MoFo raise funds by preventing other people from calling
"Mozilla Firefox" a distributed modified version of its XUL-based web
browser?

-- 
  Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpxY2VtrQPOa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Don Armstrong]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
> >trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
> >very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
> >release and dealing with all of the problems that that would cause for
> >the users of the packages.
> 
> I don't think we'd have a problem with a system whereby once a
> stable release was done, we couldn't withdraw permission for that
> release (given Debian's existing policy of just doing security
> updates to stable releases).

I didn't mean to sound like the Mozilla Foundation would willfully do
something that nefarious. However, unlike the common Free Software
licenses, the trademark licenses proposed by MF are revocable at any
time. For example, if MF's counsel decided that the trademark
agreements weren't set up correctly to preserve the mark, something
else caused Mozilla to need to revisit the terms of the trademark
agreements, or Mozilla Foundation got tired of hearing about issues
affecting ancient mozilla versions, and wanted to pull the mark
because it no longer lived up to the quality standards of a current
mozilla release.

Without an irrevocable trademark license, I at least, would be very
cautious about using the marks in the Debian package, given that
Mozilla appears to be interested in prosecuting non-Mozilla use of the
marks.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Identical parts aren't.
 -- Beach's Law

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

Alexander Sack wrote:
In contrast, the package you want us to distribute is not distributed by 
upstream. You distribute something that is restricted by active 
trademark enforcement, which IMHO is non-free, because a trademark 
policy is just another way to restrict freedom.


I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark 
policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group. 
Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? I don't think so - 
it just makes sure consumers know what they are getting.


You referred often to 'we'd have to negotiate'. OK, fine. Let's start 
with it.


Maybe you give up on some off your procedures. e.g. you could give up 
restrictions you try to enforce on us. I mean, debian (as well as other 
free software distributors) is (are) should not need to care if there is 
a trademark for some package or something. There is no problem for 
thousands of packages we include, so why mozilla?


Because part of the Mozilla Foundation's strategy to raise enough money 
to employ people to work on the code involves leveraging the name. I 
think this is great - because it's not a model which restricts the 
freedom of the code. It also gives us an incentive to make high-quality 
releases, because if we don't, the goodwill associated with the name 
goes down the pan.


AFAIK, enforcement of trademarks can be of preventive or responsive 
nature. I think if you treat your trademarks like others do (in a 
responsive manner), there would be no problem either. (This might be 
wrong, though, because me != lawyer)


As I may have mentioned before, some sort of responsive scheme may well 
be OK - but that doesn't get to the heart of what I understand the 
problem to be, which is the onward transmission of rights.


I bet they would go after commercials or other organizations that 
actually want to harm the brand significantly.


...and their ability to do so may well have been harmed by a lack of 
trademark enforcement in the past.


What I am trying to say is that mozilla is far too eager in enforcing 
their trademarks. I hope this is because you just think this is needed 
by law.
I hope this is not because you really believe it helps the overall 
purpose or will maximize the value of your brand.


We believe it helps the overall purpose in that it helps fund people to 
work on the code.


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

Don Armstrong wrote:

I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
release and dealing with all of the problems that that would cause for
the users of the packages.


I don't think we'd have a problem with a system whereby once a stable 
release was done, we couldn't withdraw permission for that release 
(given Debian's existing policy of just doing security updates to stable 
releases).


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
> > which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
> The default build removes the trademarked logos (the fox-on-globe or the 
> bird-on-envelope) but not the trademarked words.

Just to be clear: are you saying that the logo graphic with a blue
world (no fox) and the word "Firefox" is OK to use for any purpose?

> mozilla/dist is the built version of Mozilla. 
> mozilla/other-licenses/branding shouldn't be pulled or built unless 
> you've set MOZ_USE_OFFICIAL_BRANDING: [...]

mozilla/other-licenses/branding is in the source tarball. I've
no compelling reason to track mozilla CVS, as far as I know.

If mozilla/dist/.../branding is the built version, where is it built from?

> > Amusingly, the "About FireWWW" box says it is copyright
> > contributors, but pressing the credits button displays a box
> > empty apart from "FireWWW \n The browser, reloaded". [...]
> If you wait, it scrolls - or it should do. There are also more 
> contributors at about:credits.

Oh yes, so it does. The mozilla compile must have been slowing
that machine down a bit...

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we're also distributing files that the user can't modify without
> renaming, so I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. If Mozilla's
> /copyright/ license said "You may not modify this without renaming it,
> unless you have a separate agreement with us", would you object to
> Debian having permission to call the code Mozilla? Would you object if
> we then distributed it under that name, even if our users didn't have
> permission to do so?

Probably not. Is freedom to modify (or not) the software's name
as essential as the freedom to modify (or not) the software itself?
The problem here isn't a forced filename change or even a forced
change: it's some restriction on edits allowed by a licence.

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

MJ Ray wrote:

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


- The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
  logos


Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.


The default build removes the trademarked logos (the fox-on-globe or the 
bird-on-envelope) but not the trademarked words. This is because our 
current trademark policies are more strict about the use of the logo 
compared to the word, so more people (e.g. all our localisers) use the word.


Of course, there's a big "under construction" sign on all this, so I 
wouldn't be surprised if reality differs a little from the ideal.



- The names can be found in files called brand.dtd and brand.properties
  http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/find?string=browser.*brand
  (for Firefox)


Ah, I found another directory mozilla/dist/branding as well as the
mozilla/other-licenses/branding one that I knew about. Which of
these are actually used?


mozilla/dist is the built version of Mozilla. 
mozilla/other-licenses/branding shouldn't be pulled or built unless 
you've set MOZ_USE_OFFICIAL_BRANDING:

http://lxr.mozilla.org/aviarybranch/source/Makefile.in#208
This is done using the --enable-official-branding switch to configure.

If a clean CVS pull without that switch is pulling and building in that 
directory, that's definitely a bug. :-)



Is MF implicitly licensing
the trademarks by making it so hard to remove them when performing
acts permitted by the copyright licence?


No. :-)


Amusingly, the "About FireWWW" box says it is copyright
contributors, but pressing the credits button displays a box
empty apart from "FireWWW \n The browser, reloaded".  How do
Mozilla contributors feel about not being credited on the
About box at all?


If you wait, it scrolls - or it should do. There are also more 
contributors at about:credits.


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Matthew Garrett]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see why. We don't require that trademark licenses be granted to
>> our users in any case - us having an extra permission above and beyond
>> the freedoms we expect for our users doesn't seem to be a problem.
> 
> We're distributing some files which cannot be modified and
> distributed if MF considers the resulting work "confusingly
> similar". Are there many other packages afflicted by such
> agressive registered trademarks? The other one which I remember
> is Apache and I think their trademark was another source of
> tension once.

But we're also distributing files that the user can't modify without
renaming, so I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. If Mozilla's
/copyright/ license said "You may not modify this without renaming it,
unless you have a separate agreement with us", would you object to
Debian having permission to call the code Mozilla? Would you object if
we then distributed it under that name, even if our users didn't have
permission to do so?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> > be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> > seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
> I don't see why. We don't require that trademark licenses be granted to
> our users in any case - us having an extra permission above and beyond
> the freedoms we expect for our users doesn't seem to be a problem.

We're distributing some files which cannot be modified and
distributed if MF considers the resulting work "confusingly
similar". Are there many other packages afflicted by such
agressive registered trademarks? The other one which I remember
is Apache and I think their trademark was another source of
tension once.

I would agree with your view if one doesn't need an MF trademark
license to modify and distribute any of the work from debian
main. Is this similar to deciding whether we would delete
invariant sections from GNU FDL'd works if it were possible and
they were the only problem?

-- 
MJR/slef

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
>logos

Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.

> - The names can be found in files called brand.dtd and brand.properties
>http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/find?string=browser.*brand
>(for Firefox)

Ah, I found another directory mozilla/dist/branding as well as the
mozilla/other-licenses/branding one that I knew about. Which of
these are actually used?

Still the About box and about: page have Firefox graphics. Grrr.
Where do they come from?

> This should change the vast majority of instances. There are a few it 
> doesn't; these are either bugs or unavoidable due to the words being in 
> other pieces of code, like the installer. But try that and see how far 
> you get.

Well, the titlebar and some of the names are now correct.

I still have a browser that uses the Firefox trademark repeatedly
to describe itself. Can I distribute it? Is MF implicitly licensing
the trademarks by making it so hard to remove them when performing
acts permitted by the copyright licence?

Actually, I have no idea whether implicit trademark licences exist.
I was only told about implicit patent licences last year. I'd rather
not rely on that idea if I don't have to ;-)

Amusingly, the "About FireWWW" box says it is copyright
contributors, but pressing the credits button displays a box
empty apart from "FireWWW \n The browser, reloaded".  How do
Mozilla contributors feel about not being credited on the
About box at all?

-- 
MJR/slef

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Matthew Garrett]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?

I don't see why. We don't require that trademark licenses be granted to
our users in any case - us having an extra permission above and beyond
the freedoms we expect for our users doesn't seem to be a problem.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On 06 Jan 2005 01:30:02 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> > be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> > seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
> 
> At present, it seems we really *need* to replace MoFo trademarked
> names and logos in order to satisfy the DFSG. Sad but true.  :-(

And even if one were to ignore the DFSG, I'd be surprised if the
maintainers were willing to agree to the type of restrictions
necessary to even use them.

I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
release and dealing with all of the problems that that would cause for
the users of the packages.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make
you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once
enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for
anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved.

Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Francesco Poli]

On 06 Jan 2005 01:30:02 GMT MJ Ray wrote:

> Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
> 
> Alternatively, if the names are changed to
> firebird/tbird/mozzarella or anything else avoiding the MF
> trademarks, no extra licences are required. Describing the
> heritage in the description line will let users find the
> right debian package, while still being honest.
> 
> If MF is really going to insist that it gets magic veto rights
> over the work of the debian maintainer and users, changing
> the name is the easiest solution. If MF want us to use the
> trademarks, make that solution easier by relaxing the policy
> enough to follow the DFSG. I think it's fine to insist on
> prominent marking of differences, but it's too severe to revoke
> permission based on random unspecified quality judgements.

I agree entirely.
At present, it seems we really *need* to replace MoFo trademarked names
and logos in order to satisfy the DFSG. Sad but true.  :-(

-- 
  Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpxMfuWYJ3nJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

MJ Ray wrote:

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without
including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how?


Spotted another thread (mail is slow here this week) and replaced
the branding dir. Rebuild underway. Still need to replace titlebar?


I apologise that we don't have a better document detailing this process.

- The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
  logos
- The names can be found in files called brand.dtd and brand.properties
  http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/find?string=browser.*brand
  (for Firefox)

This should change the vast majority of instances. There are a few it 
doesn't; these are either bugs or unavoidable due to the words being in 
other pieces of code, like the installer. But try that and see how far 
you get.


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without
> including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how?

Spotted another thread (mail is slow here this week) and replaced
the branding dir. Rebuild underway. Still need to replace titlebar?

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain 
> name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. [...]

Is the right to modify the included mozilla logo to signify that it's
a modified version an "important freedom"?

By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without
including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how?

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that sucks 
> - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I 
> understand that. :-)

Do you? We want the freedom to ship software that MF *thinks*
sucks but we don't. After all, one day MF might think it's
sucky to have a browser that doesn't let web sites write
arbitrary data to $HOME... browsers have done stranger...

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[MJ Ray]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I don't want to get too far into this conversation until we've 
> established whether you will need new names.

Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?

Alternatively, if the names are changed to
firebird/tbird/mozzarella or anything else avoiding the MF
trademarks, no extra licences are required. Describing the
heritage in the description line will let users find the
right debian package, while still being honest.

If MF is really going to insist that it gets magic veto rights
over the work of the debian maintainer and users, changing
the name is the easiest solution. If MF want us to use the
trademarks, make that solution easier by relaxing the policy
enough to follow the DFSG. I think it's fine to insist on
prominent marking of differences, but it's too severe to revoke
permission based on random unspecified quality judgements.

> Ideally, I want to get a 
> good understanding of the Debian position on trademarks in general, and 
> then go to Chris Beard and Mitchell Baker (with whom the trademark buck 
> stops) and see what they say. After they've agreed that nothing can be 
> done, if that's their view, then let's talk about alternative names.

IIRC, both branden and myself tried to discuss trademarks with
you and others from MF before. In my discussion, MF people
just stopped answering emails. What new steps will MF take
to reach consensus this time?

Basically, can debian contributors expect any progress?

-- 
MJR/slef  My Opinion Only and maybe not of groups I know

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Francesco Poli]

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 00:06:12 + Matthew Garrett wrote:

> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Exactly.
> > DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
> > something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian
> > only, and not to downstream recipients as well.
> 
> There's some contention over this. Based on the discussion on
> debian-private that led to the DFSG, I think 8 was effectively
> shorthand for ensuring that every freedom enumerated in the DFSG was
> available to any further recipients. Others disagree. I asked Bruce
> about this, but never got a reply.
> 
> Personally, I have no objection to Debian being given freedoms that
> other users don't, providing that everyone obtains rights that satisfy
> the DFSG.

Yes, that's what I meant: my "important freedoms" referred to the ones
enumerated in the other DFSG...
If someone gets one additional freedom, that's fine, as long as nobody
lacks the minimum set of freedoms necessary to call something Free.

Example:

 This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2, as
 published by the Free Software Foundation.

 [an so on...]

 As a special exception, the Debian project (and its mirror network) is
 permitted to copy and distribute the Program in object code or
 executable form under the terms of Sections 1, without complying with
 clauses a, b or c of Section 3.

This would be perfectly fine, I think: everyone has enough freedoms (the
ones specified by the DFSG); someone simply has an additional one.


-- 
  Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpKRbPu65Qie.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Brian Masinick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> If they don't like the way we package Thunderbird or any of the
> other packages,

If you'd read the thread you'd have found that the Mozilla people are
quite happy with Debian's packages of their software. The stumbling
block is that they can't promise to also like what any of our users
may arbitrarily do to the packages we distribute.

That is reasonable for their point of view, and an objective appraisal
of the situation may well conclude that it is our adherence to our
principles that will force us to change the names, and not that the
position of Mozilla is particularly disagreeable in isolation. Which,
of course, does not make our principles any less valid.

> I recommend using really generic names for each of the packages,
> then refer to the Mozilla names in the descriptions, such as:

> Debian Web browser based on Mozilla Firefox
> Debian Email client based on Mozilla Thunderbird
> Debian browser suite based on Mozilla

No, no, no. Generic package names are bad, unless they are already
very firmly established. We don't want somebody packaging a
NextStep-native browser as simply "browser", and we equally don't want
a package with Mozilla's browser to be labeled with such blandness
either.

And in particular, we do not want to imply that one of the wide
variety of web browsers or email clients we ship, all packaged using
upstream sources created outside the project, is _the_
Debian-recommended tool of choice for that function.

For my own part, I'm sure thunderbird is a good email client for
people who like it (and do not need to do much of their mail business
through a low-bandwidth ssh connection), but I use mutt and intend to
continue doing that, and I would not at all be amused if our
thunderbird was named in a way that implied that my choice was "less
Debian" than the other.

> I have a hard time believing that after all this time they want people
> to get away from their names, but if that's really what they want, let's
> do it.

Read the thread. _They_ would basically like us to keep using the
names. _We_ do not want to keep their names if it needs to be on a
Debian-specific exception.

-- 
Henning Makholm  # good fish ...
# goodfish, goodfish ...
 # good-good FISH! #

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Gervase Markham]

Brian Masinick wrote:
"mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in 
order to

not infringe their trademarks."

I think plenty of dialog with Mozilla is a good idea.  If they don't 
like the

way we package Thunderbird or any of the other packages,


I should point out again that (given the discussions I've had with the 
Thunderbird maintainer) we are almost certainly going to be happy with 
what Debian itself does.



Debian Web browser based on Mozilla Firefox
Debian Email client based on Mozilla Thunderbird
Debian browser suite based on Mozilla


As someone raised earlier, isn't this just replacing one trademark 
problem with another (Debian)?


Those also aren't particularly wieldy names for a title bar or package ;-)


I have a hard time believing that after all this time they want people
to get away from their names, but if that's really what they want, let's
do it.  


No, we don't want people to get away from the names. But we do want a 
way of ensuring that they are a mark of quality in trademark terms.


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

Michael K. Edwards wrote:

So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.


It can, especially in the case of a web browser; consider web servers
that verify that the client claims to be a sufficiently new Mozilla or
IE before sending DHTML.


That's a bit different - no one's arguing that the MoFo should have any 
control over the UserAgent string of any browser, even one Debian ships, 
just because it contains the word "Mozilla". Such an effort would be 
both counter-productive and laughable.


Exactly what the app is called is a more difficult question. There's a 
long tradition of ln -s /usr/bin/exim sendmail, but you could also argue 
that if someone downloads and installs Debian or a derivative and types 
"firefox", the trademark holder should be making sure they get a Firefox 
they have checked for quality in a trademark sense.



It looks to me like there's a real storm brewing over trademark
enforcement in open source space.  At least in most US jurisdictions,
trademark law applies an "enforce it or lose it" standard, and one of
the key criteria in judging whether a company takes its trademark
seriously is whether it exercises quality assurance over third parties
to which it has (explicitly or implicitly) licensed the right to
distribute goods or services marked with its trademark.


I think it's absolutely right to raise the wider issue.


In a hypothetical situation where Debian is the dominant distribution
channel for Software X, performs QA functions, and handles the bulk of
bug reports, the upstream for Software X could actually lose ownership
of the trademark to Debian.  Even when the distributor relationship is
non-exclusive, a failure to exercise QA authority over the Debian
channel could weaken Mozilla's ability to enforce the trademark on
other channels.  (Imagine "Mozilla Firefox, MS Authorized Edition"
with the crippling limitations of your choice.)


Or even just "Mozilla Firefox" distributed in an official-looking manner 
rom www.firefoxbrowser.info with added spyware or bank login capture.



So the Mozilla folks are being responsible in setting out the limits
of the license to use their trademarks as part of the MPL, rather than
leaving the issue unaddressed and then springing it on people in
court.  


We're not actually doing it as part of the MPL - we want to keep 
trademark licensing separate from code licensing. The MPL doesn't speak 
about trademarks except to say that it itself doesn't give you any 
rights to them.



I think it would be a good idea to work out a modus vivendi
with them, such that the names of Debian-packaged Mozilla products are
unchanged, and designated persons from Mozilla have the right to file
RC bugs that the maintainer isn't allowed to downgrade.  That at least
preserves the forms of trademark defense, at a rather minimal cost in
freedom.


One principle that we were originally working with in our trademark 
policy is "QA in retrospect" - i.e. we let you do roughly what you want, 
but if the packages are of a consistent low standard, we get to pull the 
trademark and you have to change the name.


Now at the beginning of the thread, there were some objections raised to 
this idea - but is it better than more intrusive forms of trademark control?


GErv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Josh Triplett]

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Right. Material that doesn't provide all the DFSG-required freedoms on
> to recipients other than Debian isn't free. But I don't think DFSG 8 is
> intended to prevent Debian (or some other class of people) from having
> /extra/ freedoms, as long as everyone else has at least an acceptable
> base level.

I agree, but I also think that in cases where attaining those freedoms
requires those downstream from Debian to go to a great deal of effort,
Debian should go ahead and make that effort rather than leaving it to
others.

(However, it sounds like Mozilla may not be one of those cases.)

- Josh Triplett


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Matthew Garrett]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:06:12AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> There's some contention over this. Based on the discussion on
>> debian-private that led to the DFSG, I think 8 was effectively shorthand
>> for ensuring that every freedom enumerated in the DFSG was available to
>> any further recipients. Others disagree. I asked Bruce about this, but
>> never got a reply.
> 
> Just to be clear: except for the "clear" part, you're agreeing with Francesco,
> right?

Right. Material that doesn't provide all the DFSG-required freedoms on
to recipients other than Debian isn't free. But I don't think DFSG 8 is
intended to prevent Debian (or some other class of people) from having
/extra/ freedoms, as long as everyone else has at least an acceptable
base level.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 05:44:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
> > name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
> > use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
> 
> It can, especially in the case of a web browser; consider web servers
> that verify that the client claims to be a sufficiently new Mozilla or
> IE before sending DHTML.

What a client calls itself to servers (eg. in User-Agent headers) isn't an
issue.  That's a very functional use of the name, telling the server how to
handle the client, not telling a user what program he's running.  I don't
think trademarks can touch that.

Note that my copy of Explorer calls itself:

User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 
1.0.3705)

and every other browser I have installed either does the same or offers
it as an alternative.

(Anyone who knows more about trademarks than I do is encouraged to tell
me I'm wrong, of course.  IANAL.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Brian Masinick]

"mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order to
not infringe their trademarks."

I think plenty of dialog with Mozilla is a good idea.  If they don't like the
way we package Thunderbird or any of the other packages, I recommend using
really generic names for each of the packages, then refer to the Mozilla
names in the descriptions, such as:

Debian Web browser based on Mozilla Firefox
Debian Email client based on Mozilla Thunderbird
Debian browser suite based on Mozilla

or something similar that makes them happy and still makes things like
package searches contain a searchable string that people can recognize.

I have a hard time believing that after all this time they want people
to get away from their names, but if that's really what they want, let's
do it.  But let's not make up any new funky names.  That just opens up
the possibility of other issues elsewhere.  If we must change the name
at all, let's associate it with our project and a generic term describing
the application.  Can that get us into any trouble?  Hopefully not.


--
Brian Masinick
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Alexander Sack]

Gervase Markham wrote:



So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain 
name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you 
use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.


Yes, that's right, but we don't want to be upstream or another fork. We package 
free software provided by upstream. That is, we usually distribute the tarballs 
as they are and build the package with modifications we need to do in order to 
keep up with some debian standards or to improve the quality.


In contrast, the package you want us to distribute is not distributed by 
upstream. You distribute something that is restricted by active trademark 
enforcement, which IMHO is non-free, because a trademark policy is just another 
way to restrict freedom.


You referred often to 'we'd have to negotiate'. OK, fine. Let's start with it.

Maybe you give up on some off your procedures. e.g. you could give up 
restrictions you try to enforce on us. I mean, debian (as well as other free 
software distributors) is (are) should not need to care if there is a trademark 
for some package or something. There is no problem for thousands of packages we 
include, so why mozilla?


The whole issue arises with your policy document. If no such thing would exist, 
we (including mozilla) would probably have no problem here. Nevertheless, you 
could still claim your brand your own IMHO. It is just a problem on how you 
define "actively enforcing" a trademark.


AFAIK, enforcement of trademarks can be of preventive or responsive nature. I 
think if you treat your trademarks like others do (in a responsive manner), 
there would be no problem either. (This might be wrong, though, because me != 
lawyer)


AFAICS, other projects use a responsive enforcement for their trademark. I 
assume this, because they did not come to us.


I bet they would go after commercials or other organizations that actually want 
to harm the brand significantly.


On the other hand, going behind the small guys that distribute their super gcc 
cvs HEAD build of a package is somehow different. Usually those guys are 
somewhat private and they actually have no intent nor the potential to harm your 
trademark. Maybe they get 100 downloads of this super unstable package, but 
that's it. If the quality sucks, people won't come back, but will typically not 
think: "This piece of software is firefox? What a bad brand!". IHMO, people 
installing those builds will more or less know what they are doing.


Actually, I think there is a much greater probability, that some stupid guy 
somehow gets your pretty broken HEAD-prealpha-fancy-testings-stuff 
still-branded-premium-build on his box and wonders why the UI is somehow broken. 
After installing the right version, he finds his profile is broken and as a 
stupid user his pop mail inbox is lost too. I bet, the user will find this is 
_no inbox reclaim_, but rather _an inbox wipe-out_ :).


What I am trying to say is that mozilla is far too eager in enforcing their 
trademarks. I hope this is because you just think this is needed by law.
I hope this is not because you really believe it helps the overall purpose or 
will maximize the value of your brand.


Finally, I cannot tell you what to do. But I think it is your turn to break this 
vicious circle. As Glenn just pointed out, this is completely uncommon. So why 
do you want to go this way anyway? Try to rethink your attitude, maybe escalate 
this issue to mozilla management or do what is needed to do, to actually keep 
things going. I doubt there is a solution unless you do so.


--
 GPG messages preferred. |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack  | : :' :  The  universal
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.jwsdot.com/  |   `-http://www.debian.org/

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Michael K. Edwards]

> So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
> name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
> use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.

It can, especially in the case of a web browser; consider web servers
that verify that the client claims to be a sufficiently new Mozilla or
IE before sending DHTML.

It looks to me like there's a real storm brewing over trademark
enforcement in open source space.  At least in most US jurisdictions,
trademark law applies an "enforce it or lose it" standard, and one of
the key criteria in judging whether a company takes its trademark
seriously is whether it exercises quality assurance over third parties
to which it has (explicitly or implicitly) licensed the right to
distribute goods or services marked with its trademark.

In a hypothetical situation where Debian is the dominant distribution
channel for Software X, performs QA functions, and handles the bulk of
bug reports, the upstream for Software X could actually lose ownership
of the trademark to Debian.  Even when the distributor relationship is
non-exclusive, a failure to exercise QA authority over the Debian
channel could weaken Mozilla's ability to enforce the trademark on
other channels.  (Imagine "Mozilla Firefox, MS Authorized Edition"
with the crippling limitations of your choice.)

The drafters of the classic open source licenses weren't thinking in
terms of trademark issues.  UC Berkeley probably couldn't enforce
trademark constraints on "BSD" now if it tried.  The FSF persists in
the assertion that the (L)GPL isn't a contract at all, it's some sort
of non-contract license (with no legal foundation that I can find)
created out of copyright law, and so as a matter of principle the
(L)GPL doesn't address trademark questions.  (In both cases that I
have run across in which GPL software has been discussed in US courts,
trademark rights were enforced by the court.)

So the Mozilla folks are being responsible in setting out the limits
of the license to use their trademarks as part of the MPL, rather than
leaving the issue unaddressed and then springing it on people in
court.  I think it would be a good idea to work out a modus vivendi
with them, such that the names of Debian-packaged Mozilla products are
unchanged, and designated persons from Mozilla have the right to file
RC bugs that the maintainer isn't allowed to downgrade.  That at least
preserves the forms of trademark defense, at a rather minimal cost in
freedom.

The only consistent alternative that I can see is to yank packages
when the upstream pursues a trademark issue against any infringer --
which means dropping MySQL and RPM for starters, and Mozilla, Apache,
and Linux before long.  Somehow this doesn't seem wise.

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:06:12AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Exactly.
> > DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
> > something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
> > and not to downstream recipients as well.
> 
> There's some contention over this. Based on the discussion on
> debian-private that led to the DFSG, I think 8 was effectively shorthand
> for ensuring that every freedom enumerated in the DFSG was available to
> any further recipients. Others disagree. I asked Bruce about this, but
> never got a reply.

Just to be clear: except for the "clear" part, you're agreeing with Francesco,
right?

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Matthew Garrett]

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Exactly.
> DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
> something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
> and not to downstream recipients as well.

There's some contention over this. Based on the discussion on
debian-private that led to the DFSG, I think 8 was effectively shorthand
for ensuring that every freedom enumerated in the DFSG was available to
any further recipients. Others disagree. I asked Bruce about this, but
never got a reply.

Personally, I have no objection to Debian being given freedoms that
other users don't, providing that everyone obtains rights that satisfy
the DFSG.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

Francesco Poli wrote:

Exactly.
DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
and not to downstream recipients as well.


So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain 
name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you 
use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:28:43 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:

> If those rights are not available - under the same terms - to our
> downstreams (be they users, custom distros... whatever), then by the
> spirit of DFSG #8 (at least IMO), we shouldn't be able to make use of
> them either.

Exactly.
DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
and not to downstream recipients as well.

-- 
  Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpwdgBHyUe20.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Joel Aelwyn]

On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 11:56:24PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that
> > sucks - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
> > understand that. :-)
> 
> Here's an idea: a source package that builds either Thunderbird for
> Debian or Lightningferret, a trademark-free version -- and defaults to
> the latter, except on Debian autobuilders.  The real source to build
> the Thunderbird for Debian version is there, and it's a trivial
> switch.  But the work of producing a free-to-suck version is already
> done.
> 
> For reasons I can't fully articulate, I don't think that's a good
> idea: source packages should be the plain and simple source of the
> binaries produced.  But I'm curious whether it would be accepted as
> Free by debian-legal.

What the package actually does is orthogonal to what rights are available,
other than the former being bounded by the latter (at least we hope it
is). If those rights are not available - under the same terms - to our
downstreams (be they users, custom distros... whatever), then by the spirit
of DFSG #8 (at least IMO), we shouldn't be able to make use of them either.

Beyond that, alternate package building paths for reasons other than
purely technical (debug libraries and the like) are just a Bad Idea. If it
isn't of use to build a Debian package - or to let anyone else build the
exact same package and distribute it just as we do - then, as a rule, it
shouldn't be in the package; it's cruft.
-- 
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   ,''`.
 : :' :
 `. `'
   `-


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that
> sucks - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
> understand that. :-)

Here's an idea: a source package that builds either Thunderbird for
Debian or Lightningferret, a trademark-free version -- and defaults to
the latter, except on Debian autobuilders.  The real source to build
the Thunderbird for Debian version is there, and it's a trivial
switch.  But the work of producing a free-to-suck version is already
done.

For reasons I can't fully articulate, I don't think that's a good
idea: source packages should be the plain and simple source of the
binaries produced.  But I'm curious whether it would be accepted as
Free by debian-legal.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

Francesco Poli wrote:

If these names are unacceptable, I begin to be concerned that users
won't be able to find the right packages or type the right shell
commands, without having to remember weird mutant names from outer
space...  :-(

Don't you feel that many users will use that really cool
StormyFlyingAnimal MUA without even knowing it actually is Mozilla
Thunderbird with some distro-specific adaptations?
"Mozilla Thunderbird" could be a brand of quality, but who will
acknowledge this, when nobody knows he/she is actually using that
program?


This is the entire point, isn't it? :-) We want people to use 
Thunderbird in Debian, and to know they are using Thunderbird, and to 
get the high quality experience people get from using our Thunderbird. 
And we want to come to some arrangement with Debian to make that possible.


However, you guys want the freedom to ship software that sucks - or, 
more to the point and more likely, want to be able to easily give your 
software to other people and allow them to make it suck and then ship 
it. If that software ships using our trademarks, then that is 
incompatible with our trademark goals. So if we can't come to some 
arrangement that lets Debian use them but asks redistributors to contact 
us or remove them, then it's increasingly looking like we can't square 
this circle :-(


We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that sucks 
- but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I 
understand that. :-)


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:24:35 + Gervase Markham wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
> > ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
> > sbird - ... derived from Mozilla Sunbird
> > moz - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
> 
> For what it's worth (and without making any judgement on the legal 
> weight such a view would have, or how far we'd go in trying to
> "enforce" such a view) we'd be very unhappy with "Moz" (a very common
> abbreviation for Mozilla, and used already by the project in various
> ways) and "TBird" (being a very common abbreviation for Thunderbird),
> and not particularly keen on "ffox" either.

If these names are unacceptable, I begin to be concerned that users
won't be able to find the right packages or type the right shell
commands, without having to remember weird mutant names from outer
space...  :-(

Don't you feel that many users will use that really cool
StormyFlyingAnimal MUA without even knowing it actually is Mozilla
Thunderbird with some distro-specific adaptations?
"Mozilla Thunderbird" could be a brand of quality, but who will
acknowledge this, when nobody knows he/she is actually using that
program?

Don't you think that all this defending precious trademarks could result
in being counter-productive?


-- 
  Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpvGH0rw7ztJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

Josh Triplett wrote:

Henning Makholm wrote:


But isn't the full suite going to be discontinued once the
thermodynamically challenged predator and its stormy avian cousin
reach maturity anyway?


As I understand it, not anymore: there are enough third parties building
upon Seamonkey (the suite) that it will continue to be maintained for
the forseeable future.


That's the current position. Whether we just "keep it working" or 
whether it moves along more innovatively depends on whether anyone ports 
it to the new UI toolkit that Firefox and Thunderbird use. There is an 
effort under way to do that, but I don't know if it'll succeed.


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Josh Triplett]

Henning Makholm wrote:
> But isn't the full suite going to be discontinued once the
> thermodynamically challenged predator and its stormy avian cousin
> reach maturity anyway?

As I understand it, not anymore: there are enough third parties building
upon Seamonkey (the suite) that it will continue to be maintained for
the forseeable future.

- Josh Triplett


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 10:20:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

>> A name for the suite is hard.

> Mozzarella.

Congraulations, sir. You win.

But isn't the full suite going to be discontinued once the
thermodynamically challenged predator and its stormy avian cousin
reach maturity anyway?

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Punctuation, is? fun!"

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> However, I don't want to get too far into this conversation until
> we've established whether you will need new names. Ideally, I want to
> get a good understanding of the Debian position on trademarks in
> general, and then go to Chris Beard and Mitchell Baker (with whom the
> trademark buck stops) and see what they say. After they've agreed that
> nothing can be done, if that's their view, then let's talk about
> alternative names.

Debian's goal is distributing a useful and free package.  "Useful"
for these is easy.  Thanks.  "Free" is a bit harder: it means that
recipients have to be able to do Debian-like things with no trouble.
So if you're concerned about quality and interested in protecting
the Mozilla trademark, then Debian should strip it from the packages
it distributes.  Offloading that work to recipients is a bug, from
Debian's point of view.

It's very nice to hear that Mozilla's packaging things to make that
easy -- a really good sign that our actual goals here are closely
aligned.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Gervase Markham]

Francesco Poli wrote:

tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
sbird - ... derived from Mozilla Sunbird
moz - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla


For what it's worth (and without making any judgement on the legal 
weight such a view would have, or how far we'd go in trying to "enforce" 
such a view) we'd be very unhappy with "Moz" (a very common abbreviation 
for Mozilla, and used already by the project in various ways) and 
"TBird" (being a very common abbreviation for Thunderbird), and not 
particularly keen on "ffox" either.


However, I don't want to get too far into this conversation until we've 
established whether you will need new names. Ideally, I want to get a 
good understanding of the Debian position on trademarks in general, and 
then go to Chris Beard and Mitchell Baker (with whom the trademark buck 
stops) and see what they say. After they've agreed that nothing can be 
done, if that's their view, then let's talk about alternative names.


Gerv

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 10:20:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> A name for the suite is hard.

Mozzarella.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Francesco Poli]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:20:26 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> As long as we're discussing names
[...]
> A name for the suite is hard.


What about the following ones?

tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
sbird - ... derived from Mozilla Sunbird
moz - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla



Note: the name "tbird" was thought by Alexander Sack, credit where
credit is due!  :)

-- 
  Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpEvShJ5C72L.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

[Nathanael Nerode]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>OK, let's say I rename the package to 'somebird' and want to produce a good 
>package for debian. Should I use a patched orig.tar.gz or is it ok to 
>distribute the source as provided by upstream (of course without the 
>trademarked icons) and patch the rest (e.g. thunderbird mozilla) during 
>build?

As long as we're discussing names

I kind of like "somebird", actually.  It's cute and non-confusing.  :-)

For firefox, "iceweasel" has the amusing advantage of being directly in the 
Mozilla trademark licencing policy, thanks to my use of that name really 
early in the discussion.  :-)  It might be pretty easy to "standardize" it 
among different "option 3" distributors for that reason.

Of course, it is now in use as the abstract name for a renamed version, so 
maybe it wouldn't be so good to use it for a specific version.

A name for the suite is hard.

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Nathanael Nerode]

Alexander Sack wrote:
>So what do they basically want? They basically want us to comply to the
>community editions terms as described in [1]. This implies that we do not use
>any term that reads: "Mozilla Thunderbird". Neither in the package-name nor 
>in the application itself.
Correct
 
>So what does this mean? The mozilla-thunderbird package should be named
>thunderbird (*sigh*). They feel this is most important and there is no way to
No, worse; they want "thunderbird-community-edition".  Or 
"thunderbird-community-edition-debian" :-P  Barring explicit special 
permission.

It gets worse.  From the trademark policy:

--
Community members and organizations can start using the "Firefox Community 
Edition" and "Thunderbird Community Edition" trademarks from day one, but the 
Mozilla Foundation may require individuals or teams to stop doing so in the 
future if they are redistributing software with low quality and efforts to 
remedy the situation have not succeeded. Doing things this way allows us to 
give as much freedom to people as possible, while maintaining our trademarks 
as a mark of quality (which we are required to do in order to keep them). 
--

In other words, they can revoke the right to use the Thunderbird name 
entirely, on a whim.  Is that acceptable (DFSG-free) or not?  This is not an 
issue which I remember addressing before.

If they did revoke permission in the future, you'd need to change all the 
names *again*.  That might be an incentive to go the Iceweasel route 
immediately.  :-P

>negotiate about the package name. In addition we need to make some changes to
>the thunderbird
"thunderbird-community-edition"
>package. That is ... remove all "Mozilla Thunderbird" terms from 
>the app (change to Debian Thunderbird).
"Debian Thunderbird Community Edition"
>In addition all locale packages need to 
>be adjusted.
Yep.
 
>Another IMHO more important point is, that we need (they want us) to add a
>statement to the thunderbird copyright file like:
>
>"People distributing works derived from the default Debian package of
>Thunderbird will have to also comply with the mozilla.org trademark policies,
"Thunderbird Community Edition"
>or remove the trademarks entirely from the package. Obviously, if it's a 
>just a copy of the package, no permission would be needed." 
Yes, that's a fine legal notice.

>So my question ... Is thunderbird still free and suitable for main with these
>restrictions?
Well, the legal notice is OK.  I hope I've clarified what the trademark policy 
actually requires.  :-P  Whether that's free enough or not, I don't know.  

Some other parts I *don't* like:
"Therefore if you want to ship extenions, themes or plugins installed by 
default (as opposed to, say, linked as XPIs from the default start page) then 
you need to run the list past us for approval."
...
"Any rights to Mozilla Foundation trademarks granted in this document fall 
under an over-arching requirement that the use of the trademark be 
non-confusing and non-disparaging."
Non-confusing is fine and good, of course.  We love non-confusing.  
Non-disparaging is a unpleasant free speech infringment, and I don't like it 
one bit.  It's probably included because of some stupid legal precedent

"By non-disparaging, we mean that (outside the bounds of fair use) you can't 
use our marks to be rude about us."
If I remember correctly, the bounds of fair use in the US say you can pretty 
nearly always use the marks in criticism.  What the heck is going on here?  
Is this referring purely to (the equivalent of) having a package labeled 
"Mozilla" with deliberate trash in it?  Or is it actually about stifling 
criticism?

These are trademarks with fairly strong restrictions on use claimed.  The 
question is whether trademarks with such strong restrictions on use should be 
used under license by Debian in main, or considered non-free and stripped 
from main.  I am not going to pretend to answer that question since I'm not 
sure.  I'm inclined to say "yes, it's free", but...

> If _not_, the only option left would be the iceweasel way mentioned in [1].
Which would have the advantage of not requiring a second round of work if the 
Mozilla Foundation decided to revoke permission to use the Community 
trademark license.  So I would be inclined to do this

Heh.  I'm a fence-sitter.

  ...
>[1] - http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html

More nasty points:

Addon packages should not, according to the trademark policy, be called 
"thunderbird-enigmail", for instance.  "enigmail-for-thunderbird" is fine 
though.  (Whew.)

>[1] - http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html

--Nathanael Nerode

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> That's not the Mozilla authors' decision; "confusingly similar" is a call to
> be made by a judge, and common sense is a strong indicator for this.  If the
> Mozilla authors try to claim that "freebird" and "thunderbird" are
> confusingly similar, they should be ignored.  (The names "firebird" and
> "freebird" could be considered confusingly similar, however; I wouldn't opt
> for "freebird" as a replacement name here without buy-in from the Mozilla
> folks.)

If you want their buy-in for the last, it's only polite to seek their
agreement for the earlier names.  And what does it cost to build a
little good-will with other projects?

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Alexander Sack]

Steve Langasek wrote:


confusingly similar, they should be ignored.  (The names "firebird" and
"freebird" could be considered confusingly similar, however; I wouldn't opt


if the question is firebird vs. freebird, this might be a problem, but remember 
that they switched to firefox, because they _could not_ claim firebird their own.


However, freefox vs. firefox might be a problem; but then let's consider 
something similar like wildfox or openfox.


--
 GPG messages preferred. |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack  | : :' :  The  universal
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.jwsdot.com/  |   `-http://www.debian.org/

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 05:35:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > I don't want to negotiate on the names (again) unless we find a
> > solution that has the backup from debian, from the current package
> > maintainers (eric, takuo et al) and maybe from other free
> > distributions. The last group is not accessible to me, since I have no
> > connections to other projects.
> > Maybe someone can help out on this?

> I certainly can't help you there, and I'm not sure there is any
> subentity within Debian that can usefully give you its blessing.

> > BTW, I don't think they can claim the common words 'bird' and 'fox'
> > their own, so 'freebird' would be valid as much as 'freefox' IMHO. The
> > only name I am unsure of is 'freezilla'. But maybe we can work around
> > this problem by naming it freexilla :)

> There's no disguising the fact that "freefox" and "freebird" were
> chosen to be similar to and evocative of the names "firefox" and
> "thunderbird".  It's a matter of whether they are *confusingly*
> similar.  The easiest way to answer that would be to ask the Moz
> people whether they'd consider them confusingly similar or not.

That's not the Mozilla authors' decision; "confusingly similar" is a call to
be made by a judge, and common sense is a strong indicator for this.  If the
Mozilla authors try to claim that "freebird" and "thunderbird" are
confusingly similar, they should be ignored.  (The names "firebird" and
"freebird" could be considered confusingly similar, however; I wouldn't opt
for "freebird" as a replacement name here without buy-in from the Mozilla
folks.)

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
>
> Oughtn't that be godsaic?

My understanding of this is a bit shaky, but I'm told by trustworthy
sources that the name of the atomic firebreathing lizard monster who
knocks down Tokyo every February 2nd is pronounced much more like
Gojira than Godzilla.  Locals use the patterns of his breath to
calibrate their seasonal calendar.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla

Oughtn't that be godsaic?

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
  en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
  forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi."

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Mike Hommey]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 08:52:24PM +0100, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 
> >lightningbug - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
> >iceweasel - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
> >gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
> >
> > 
> >
> OK, my final name suggestions would be:
> 
> freebird - ...thunderbird
> freefox - ... firefox
> freezilla - ... mozilla

I think *zilla names should be avoided. IIRC, mozilla has had a problem with
the Godzilla trademark owners a long time ago.

Mike

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Mike Hommey]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 03:35:00PM +0100, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> >Note that this name change requirement gets interesting to name
> >Mozilla...
> >Mozilla Thunderbird can be "Thunderbird for Debian" or "Debian
> >Thunderbird"
> >Mozilla Firefox can be "Firefox for Debian" or "Debian Firefox"
> >What can be Mozilla ? "for Debian" or "Debian" ?
> 
> 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).

And who agrees with patches ? I have sent some of my patches for Firefox
in their bugzilla in august and still got no other reaction than "Ben,
can you look into this ?" And I asked for a review last month... If we
have to wait for months to get an answer as to what they think about our
patches, we can't do anything.

Mike

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen]

Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I don't want to negotiate on the names (again) unless we find a
> solution that has the backup from debian, from the current package
> maintainers (eric, takuo et al) and maybe from other free
> distributions. The last group is not accessible to me, since I have no
> connections to other projects.
> Maybe someone can help out on this?

I certainly can't help you there, and I'm not sure there is any
subentity within Debian that can usefully give you its blessing.

> BTW, I don't think they can claim the common words 'bird' and 'fox'
> their own, so 'freebird' would be valid as much as 'freefox' IMHO. The
> only name I am unsure of is 'freezilla'. But maybe we can work around
> this problem by naming it freexilla :)

There's no disguising the fact that "freefox" and "freebird" were
chosen to be similar to and evocative of the names "firefox" and
"thunderbird".  It's a matter of whether they are *confusingly*
similar.  The easiest way to answer that would be to ask the Moz
people whether they'd consider them confusingly similar or not.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Alexander Sack]

Andrew Suffield wrote:


They can't complain about trademarks if the file is the actual
unmodified upstream tarball: accuracy is an ultimate defence against
trademark claims. If it's been modified by removing stuff for
copyright reasons then you might have a problem, depending on how they
restrict use of the trademarks.

The tarball stands alone for this one; the rest of the source package
is irrelevant - if it's okay to distribute the stripped tarball alone,
then it's okay as part of the debian package too. Might be worth
asking them about it.



I will ask how a free source tarball should look like and if they are planning 
to release one at some point.


--
 GPG messages preferred. |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack  | : :' :  The  universal
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.jwsdot.com/  |   `-http://www.debian.org/

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

[Alexander Sack]

Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:


That's a really good idea.  I'm not sure, but it looks from previous
messages like you've been communicating with Mozilla Project people
about this.  Can you get some of them to agree that these are not
confusingly similar names, to be very clear that they're not likely to
complain later?

 

I don't want to negotiate on the names (again) unless we find a solution 
that has the backup from debian, from the current package maintainers 
(eric, takuo et al) and maybe from other free distributions. The last 
group is not accessible to me, since I have no connections to other 
projects.

Maybe someone can help out on this?

BTW, I don't think they can claim the common words 'bird' and 'fox' 
their own, so 'freebird' would be valid as much as 'freefox' IMHO. The 
only name I am unsure of is 'freezilla'. But maybe we can work around 
this problem by naming it freexilla :)


--
GPG messages preferred. |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Alexander Sack  | : :' :  The  universal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `'  Operating System
http://www.jwsdot.com/  |   `-http://www.debian.org/