[SlugLUG] Ubuntu 6.10 Edgy Eft Released

[Peter Belew]

I think that's a good analysis of the situation. Both organizations have
trademarks to protect, and also they have their own support
mechanisms and release schedules to work within. It's not a matter
of bad feelings, just adherence to their own guidelines.

For the moment, this is a bit confusing to users of Debian and distros
that are Debian-based.

Oh - and apparently there is a GNU version of Iceweasel, adding to the
confusion. Maybe they should call this GNUferret? :) Or GNUotter?
Or, that's it! - GNUskunk! Another mustilid from the skunkworks?

Peter

On 10/26/06, Sean Kellogg <skellogg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify a common misconception about this issue, while trying to not
> take sides as I can sympathize with both positions.
>
> The fundamental concern is not one of copyrights.  Firefox and its brethren
> are released under the tri-license scheme, one of which is the GPL...  so
> anyone is free to do whatever they want with the copyrighted material (within
> the guidelines of the GPL).  This includes modifying the heck out of the
> source code as seems to be the want of the current Firefox debian packager.
>
> The issue here is one of trademarks, which is a whole separate issue from
> copyrights.  The Mozilla Corp|Foundation has a trademark in both the firefox
> logo and the word "firefox" as applied to browsers.  The GPL is silent on the
> topic of trademarks and Mozilla has not granted a blanket right to use the
> term.  They only allow it to be used if you comply with certain standards,
> one of which is patches must be reviewed by the Firefox developers.
>
> This runs into a host of issues in the eyes of Debian and the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines (DFSG).  In my opinion, Debian has recently taken a
> somewhat overzealous interpretation of the DFSG and applied it to
> all "things" that comprise their distribution (as opposed to just software
> code).  This includes images, sounds, fonts, and even words (Google "Debian
> GFDL invariant" for more about word freeness).
>
> So, on the Mozilla side you have the concern about producing a high quality
> product and keeping control of its brand image (behavior which is required
> under the law if they are to maintain their trademark), and on the other you
> have Debian, who does not want to have to submit patches for upstream review
> and believes all pieces of their distribution must be free, absolutely.
> (Never mind that the ubiquitous Debian swirl is a non-free image and under
> trademark).
>
> Which leaves re-branding as the only reasonable course of action.  Keeps
> Debian free and avoids the potential of tarnishing Mozilla's trademark.
>
> -Sean
>
> --
> Sean Kellogg
> c: 831.818.6940 e: skellogg at gmail.com
> w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/
>
> So, let go
> ...Jump in
>  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
>  ...it's all right
>   ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
> _______________________________________________
> Sluglug mailing list
> Sluglug at sluglug.ucsc.edu
> http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sluglug
>