To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Posted by "snowbender": >>The point is that the non-free license for the Firefox artwork really is a big deal for Debian<<
Posted by Jody: >I guess this is where I disagree with Debian. The logo is trademarked, just like the Firefox name.<
The point is, it is a licensing issue, not a trademark issue. That's not the same -- and the point of the lawyer in the article.
Edit: fixed quotes
Edited 2006-10-11 23:19
As I understand it...
Debian is not just a product, it's a base for development. Anyone can take Debian and - provided they don't touch non-free - modify and re-distibute it as much as they like without fear of breaching a license.
If someone modifies the Firefox artwork, they breach Mozilla's license. If Firefox goes into non-free, deriviative works can't incorporate it (unless they treat it as a special case and take on any legal hassles themselves). Therefore Debian are forking it to create a completely free version that everyone can use.






Member since:
2005-06-30
The point is that the non-free license for the Firefox artwork really is a big deal for Debian
I guess this is where I disagree with Debian. The logo is trademarked, just like the Firefox name.
They seem to have no issue with using names that are trademarked, but they refuse to use a trademarked logo? (Linux is a trademark of Linus T.)
Even the name Debian is trademarked.
The logo is as much a part of the brand as the name and it I think they are entirely within their right to trademark it.
I'll bet my lunch that Firefox is not the only open source application being passed around that holds a trademark on their logo too.