Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net writes:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Philip Hands phil@hands.com wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net writes:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
if you're not familiar with or don't clearly understand the difference, look up the history behind why the Debian Team renamed firefox to "iceweasel".
here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_...
That was nothing to do with copyright, nor attribution.
The problem is the way that Mozilla enforces its trademark.
Mozilla is (fairly reasonably) concerned that people might take one of its trademarked programs, trojan it, and redistribute the result under the name of e.g. Firefox, thus tainting their good name. They therefore reserve the right to specify which code costitutes Firefox, etc. and want sight of any patches that are applied to allow them to determine whether they should withdraw the use of the name from the result of the patch.
so mozilla have a total lack of trust of the debian team.
No.
Mozilla has a trademark policy designed to deal with abusers.
Debian has a policy that requires any license to _not_ be exclusive to Debian, because that would cause trouble downstream.
These two things are both reasonable, but sadly incompatible.
that's the debian team who have software libre's interests, user's interests, their own long-standing reputation (backed up by GPG-signing) to protect, and the mozilla foundation's directors could not see fit to trust such reliable and reputable people to look after something as critical as security patches.
None of that is relevant.
Debian on the other hand wants to be able to apply security patches without needing to ask Mozilla for approval, and more importantly perhaps want not to impose such restrictions on their downstreams.
The use of the Ice* names is done to avoid the scenario where a security fix fails to meet with approval, and then the Debian maintainers being faced with the need to do an emergency trademark purge in order to deploy a security fix.
good for them. sounds like the right decision.
also sounds very much like i quoted _completely_ the wrong example. any other mistakes i made that you can see, phil? :)
Since you ask:
https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/open-source-hardware
"The Hardware project is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa
"This is a copyleft free license that is good for ..."
So the olimex boards are under an FSF-approved copyleft license.
I think perhaps you've conflated the word "Attribution" with the BSD 4-clause license (with its obnoxious "Advertising" clause):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
Cheers, Phil.