Alex Hudson wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I can't remember exactly what it's a trademark for, but I'm pretty sure it's not a trademark for a filename.
That's completely irrelevant. There isn't any such thing as a 'trademark for a filename' - you seem to be saying that trademarks apply to objects. Trademarks identify the *source* of the goods; they're applied to things to mark their origin.
Indeed. Filenames do not "identify the source of the goods" - they are just a convenient mutable label for program or storage files. Whatever else, the more extreme claims in discussions about needing to change filenames which let you execute "firefox" or "apt-get install mozilla-firefox" are not directly trademarky.
Really, I was hoping that you would agree that there is an upper limit to the trademark problems. You seem to be asserting that any use of the word firefox in any context requires the trademark holder's permission. Do I understand that correctly?
I will probably write a basic primer on trademarks at some point, because even though I'm not terribly conversant with US law I do at least know how they function. I seem to keep having this same conversation with people.... :/
Please don't. If you understand them (which seems doubtful), then repeated conversations should suggest that you are not good at communicating it.
Sadly, US law is the main concern for debian on this one, as both Mozilla Foundation and debian's holding corporation (Software in the Public Interest, Inc) are US-based.
Again, that's not relevant either. The law applicable is that of the country of distribution; US law doesn't get exported everywhere just because someone happens to have their HQ over there.
ftp-master.debian.org is in the US and so are a lot of other debian donations. Even ignoring money, it's a bigger pain if distribution is stopped there, although I'm sure there'd be a workaround for any technical problems. I don't see how you can claim it's not relevant. Very strange.