Trademarks: A threat to free software's freedom? (NewsForge) [LWN.net]

Trademarks: A threat to free software's freedom? (NewsForge)

Posted Nov 6, 2004 0:20 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
Parent article: Trademarks: A threat to free software's freedom? (NewsForge)

Clause 4 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines reads:

Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)

Notice the second sentence. Asserting trademark rights, such as that only a version produced by the authors or approved by the authors can carry the original name, would seem to be explicitly allowed by this clause. As long as this language is in the DFSG, I don't see how Debian can object to at least certain uses of trademarks to distinguish official from non-official versions.

(Log in to post comments)

Trademarks: A threat tofree software's freedom? (NewsForge)

Posted Nov 6, 2004 2:31 UTC (Sat) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

I'm not a Debianite (I am a Gentooist), but as I have an interest in free
software remaining free, I tend to follow their debates on the subject to
some degree.

I'm not sure about the AbiWord case, but I know the Mozilla-Firefox policy
has been discussed on the Gentoo devel group. In that case, Firefox
restricts the use of their branding icons and the like as well as the
name, they claim (not unreasoanbly) due to concern over dilution of
trademark and reputation.

Thus, the question there in relation to the policy you quoted above would
be whether "name" includes other identifying "trademarks" such as icons
and the like. I'd suggest that it does, altho that's of course up to
Debian to decide. However, I can see a legitimate concern and debate over
what /could/ become a slippery slope. Once certain (admittedly
reasonable, altho not necessarily desirable) restrictions are allowed, as
with name, and now icon and other "trademark" artwork, there will always
be borderline cases. Just where is the line drawn as to what restrictions
are allowed and what not? In a uni-national context, one could simply
leave it up to the legal definition of trademark. However, in the
multi-national/international context of free software and the internet,
which nation's law applies? What if some nation institutes a law that
goes as far over the top in respect to trademarks as I'd guess most here
would agree the DMCA went over the top in respect to other "intellectual
property", copyrights? We can't let the arbitrarily over the top laws of
some renegade nation (and I say that as a USian) dictate equally
unreasonable over the top policies in general.

I'm glad to see this debate, as it's important to think about for all of
us that care about freedom of expression and the "free software world",
whether we agree on the details or not. As for my thoughts on where it's
all headed, see my response just posted to the original NewsForge article.

Duncan

Trademarks: A threat tofree software's freedom? (NewsForge)

Posted Nov 6, 2004 3:07 UTC (Sat) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

Presumably, for the icons, distros could decide that the packages including the original icons are not free, and simply replace the trademarked icons with a distro-branded (or otherwise non-trademarked) set of icons. Names are possibly more of a problem, because it may not be easy to replace the names of programs and have anyone able to find them, or even be sure to change every occurance.

Does author of GPL software need to provide alternatives?

Posted Nov 8, 2004 15:55 UTC (Mon) by justme (guest, #19967) [Link]

AFAIK, Firefox is not GPL'd. But your example brings up a question: if an author of GPL'd software claims that certain parts of the source distribution (e.g. the icons) cannot be freely modified, then does the author need to provide alternate icons in order for there to be a source set that is completely buildable, modifiable, and redistributable?

Or is it assumed that anyone who wishes to modify the name and icons would modify them all together? That seems like a stretch.

Whoops...

Posted Nov 6, 2004 14:04 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Ah yes, the TeX exception. :/

Whoops...

Posted Nov 6, 2004 15:44 UTC (Sat) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link]

The problem, Joe, is that that restriction seems to be in force, *and*
Debian has modified its version of AbiWord, *and* Debian hasn't renamed
it.

Debian therefore appears to be in violation of AbiWord's trademark
license. Except the only trademark license that's publicly available has
been superseded according to the current mark holder. Except that what
it's been superseded by doesn't exist.

It's a very confusing situation. If the trademark license page at
AbiWord's site is out of date and doesn't reflect the wishes of the mark
holder, I don't understand why they don't take it down.

Whoops...

Posted Nov 6, 2004 15:55 UTC (Sat) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link]

Just to connect a few more dots for people...

Dom Lachowitz sent Debian an email with a sort of trademark license that
would permit Debian to distribute its modified version of AbiWord, except
there are two caveats: 1) Dom said it wasn't a license per se, and 2) it's
Debian-specific. For those who haven't reviewed the DFSG or Open Source
Definition lately, licenses that are specific to a licensee cannot be
Free.

If Dom is right that everything Debian and other Linux distributors do
falls under the "trademark fair use" umbrella, then he's right that Debian
doesn't need a trademark license. If he's wrong, though, then Debian
still has a problem -- it needs to either get a DFSG-free trademark
license, or rename the software.

Whoops...

Posted Nov 13, 2004 23:18 UTC (Sat) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link]

2) it's Debian-specific. For those who haven't reviewed the DFSG or Open Source Definition lately, licenses that are specific to a licensee cannot be Free.

I thought about this, and I'm not sure it's a problem. Everyone agrees that abiword is free software even without the trademark licence, because you have the necessary freedoms as long as you change the name (and other trademarked items). So a Debian-specific trademark licence wouldn't make the difference between it being free and non-free, it would just give a bit of extra benefit to Debian. I don't see anything wrong with that, unless you interpret the Debian-specific prohibition very strictly.

The situation is difficult if you acknowledge the concern of Abiword over their brand. It would probably be impossible for them to prescribe exactly what changes you could make and still carry the Abiword trademark; yet they want to be recognized in any modification that retains its "integrity". So the best solution for them is to authorize distributors, like Debian, whom they trust, to use the trademark. It seems a reasonable approach to me.