Article: "Fixing linux" - opinions?

[simo]

On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 16:16 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:32:32AM -0500, simo wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 08:38 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:39:55AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > > Yes, you can modify the artwork.
> > >
> > > No, you cannot modify the artwork and redistribute.
> >
> > This is plainly false, as long as you don't use the trademarks you can.
> 
> False. You cannot modify the Firefox logo.

I think you do not understand Trademark law.

> > > > What does that have to do with:
> > > >  1. running the program for any purpose
> > > >  2. being able to study and modify it
> > > >  3. being able to distribute copies
> > > >  4. being able to distribute modified copies?
> > >
> > > You can't distribute modified copies.
> >
> > False, all you need is to remove the trademarks, might not be fun, but
> > it doesn't stop you to change the functionality of the program in a ny
> > way you want.
> 
> False. You cannot modify the Firefox logo.

As above.

> > > > All of those are allowed, so it is Free Software.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Why is Firefox not in Debian main? Because it is non-free.
> >
> > Debian has its own concept of Free or non-Free, they are free to have their
> > own, but it is not universally accepted so please avoid judging free or
> > non-free out of the scope of the Debian project with their metric and sell
> > that as the Revealed Truth.
> 
> You're implying that your definition is more true.

No, unlike you I recognize others may have different point of view, and
I do not try to impose my belief like a zealot does.

> > > > You just can't *call* it Firefox, but being able to call the program whatever
> > > > you want is not one of the software freedoms.
> > >
> > > You have misunderstood the issue at hand.
> >
> > That's just your opinion, not all people agree with the Debian view, nor
> > on Firefox, nor on the GFDL to name a few.
> 
> No, I am stating a fact.

Zealotry, that's the only thing you are really stating with this
behavior.

> The original message had misunderstood that you cannot modify the Firefox logo.

The Free Software definition is about software, whether a non-functional
part of the software can be modified or not isn't really on the table.
Moreover the prohibition to modify the logo comes from trademark law,
and is not something you can change even with a license, much less a
copyright license.

> > Now consider that you cannot change any Free Software program name into
> > Coca-Cola and redistribute it. Does it mean they are all non-Free because
> > there is at least one modification you can't make ?
> 
> Of course not.

Then you admit restrictions on how a program or its artwork can be
modified ...

> The ImageMagick cannot be modified, thus is non-free. Same thing.

As far as I know the ImageMagick license is GPL compatible therefore it
must be a free software license ...

> > Or would you consider the Firefox code free if they distributed their source
> > code normally under the name Foobar, and then used the Firefox brand only for
> > their binary distribution ? Would it make any difference ? If so what would
> > that be? And if not why not ?
> 
> Firefox is the name of the software when branded as Firefox.

So the software is different if you change the name ? Curious, in my
book a rose is a rose even if you call it another way ...

> When branded as Firefox, with the logo and the name, the software is non-free.

Ok so we have that any free software can be transformed into non-free
software by simply adding a trademarked name ... how lame an argument.

Simo.