4 ms·
That's sort of the difference, isn't it? Debian forked Firefox and changed the code, so they had to rename it. But this doesn't look like changing the code, it'
by akerl_ 2y ago
That's sort of the difference, isn't it? Debian forked Firefox and changed the code, so they had to rename it. But this doesn't look like changing the code, it's building it with different versions of its dependencies / different wrapping around it. Maybe there's a case here, but it feels pretty tenuous.
- lmm 2y ago> Debian forked Firefox and changed the code Debian didn't actually change the code, but they consider the right to change the code important, and don't accept Debian-specific exceptions.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoThat's "changing the code." The main issue that I see, is that OBS doesn't want to be held responsible for the Fedora version, which is different from the "officially-supported" OBS version. They didn't modify anything other than the build, to exclude certain dependencies. But modifying the build, is modifying the code. They are allowed to do that, but they probably aren't allowed to slap the OBS name on the result.
- akerl_ 2y ago> But modifying the build, is modifying the code. Is it? Across Ubuntu, RHEL, and Archlinux, basically every package is being built against different versions of its underlying dependencies, and is being patched as needed to work with those distros. Trademarks weaken with lax enforcement, so you'd think if that interpretation held it would be amazingly dangerous for any trademark holder whose software was being packaged for Linux distros.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoMaybe, but IANAL. Many build pipelines are almost as complex as the code they weave together.
- rincebrain 2y agoI think the specific argument being made here, is that the technical details of how Fedora implements this mean that people who do not read carefully and click a checkbox may attempt to install the official flatpak version and get Fedora's rebuild of it instead, with no obvious cue that they did so, other than the bugs that they then go report, not understanding the internals of Fedora's opinions on flatpaks. I suppose the closest analogy I can imagine from non-malicious(arguably) history would be software hosting sites that would repackage installers with their own adware or toolbar or whatever "value add".
- akerl_ 2y agoI think it is possible that OBS could make that nuanced argument in court: that what Fedora is doing here confuses consumers specifically because of how they stack multiple default repos and override the 1st party package. But it would hinge on whether consumers are confused about the product they're getting, and I think that's unlikely to succeed. Notably, I think the fact that users are going to the OBS project to report bugs is more likely to work against their case than for it, because it shows that consumers do accurately realize that the OBS Project owns OBS, not Fedora.
- j16sdiz 2y agoTrademark isn't only about the ownership of the brand. Its about who can use the brand on what. By using the brand on something else, the reputation can be damaged
- akerl_ 2y agoIs somebody using the brand on something that isn't OBS? https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox.jammy/files/head:/debian https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox.ja... is the config for what becomes Ubuntu's firefox package https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/firefox https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/fi... is the equivalent for Arch Both apply different configurations, use different versions of dependencies, and in Arch's case applies a patch to the upstream code. Which of them isn't Firefox?
- der_rod 2y ago> They didn't modify anything other than the build, to exclude certain dependencies. To be clear here: They do modify it further than that by applying a number of patches. For example, they replace libx264 with OpenH264 which also requires some changes to the UI code since it is (unfortunately) hardcoded to expect x264 to exist. While there have been efforts to upstream those changes, they have not yet been merged.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoThanks for that. It seems (to me) to make sense, for OBS to want their name off of it.
- dismalaf 2y agoOh it's a way different situation (Debian followed every letter of both the license and trademark law), but is an example that most FOSS people remember of a trademark issue related to a distro packaging an OSS project and needing to change the branding.