You just tiptoed up to a point that I think is most interesting.
Why would we assume the Russians would do this to support Trump, instead of the candidate who is a self proclaimed socialist, on the eve of his last logistical chance of getting the nomination, who was the one who was directly hurt by the exposed actions?
Now I might have my reasons but to take this question one step further, why would Hillary or the DNC assume this was to help Trump and not Bernie?
If you want to do this in hardware, you can use MaxIQ from Adaptec which, IIRC, uses linux drivers to get this function from their storage controllers. There is also a few others, one of which only mirrors the first part of the hard drive.
I'll agree, but ultimately the problems arisen with cache consistency and the latency of the network in inhibiting that consistency makes such caching unfeasible.
And by new paradigm, you mean the emperor's new clothes?
The author clearly offered no new paradigm, only a slap on the back and a hardy "take charge and tell them what you really think". That is not discouraged by the "old" paradigm, nor is it a "new" paradigm.
We might be saying the same things, but the author of the article said little that helps, and nothing that promotes anything but hubris.
The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.
I don't think you understood what you read else you couldn't have come to the conclusion you have. Right now, "IT as a business", creates a multitude of barriers which by their very nature inhibit communication.
So he says, but the parent comment is right, any paradigm could suffer from the same barriers.
In many places this is actually by design and intent.
Not in my experience, which actually sees IT organizations dramatically misunderstanding the business paradigm they trying to adopt with the customer model. Many of the policies that many IT folks adopt in that paradigm would not make for a successful business or customer service experience.
There have been way to many/.ers who read the article and drank fully the kool-aid of criticism. Beguiled by the promise of being in charge, the consultant who casually alluded to (but never divulged) what he teaches, the./ers seem to have entrenched even more against their foes rather then torn down barriers.
I'm convinced that the IT-as-a-business paradigm is not bad at all. But that those that adopt it forget the business sense at the center of it. I believe that might be the contradiction the parent comment is alluding to also.
The IT shop you mentioned is likely a very successful IT shop in maximizing the money they get, and minimizing the investment they have to make to get it. In fact it looks more like a way to be successful without really understanding business (which is what most techies want anyway).
But there are better ways of doing things. But it involves better understanding business, and when you better understand business they will in turn understand IT much better (because you are much better at communicating it to them).
I'll agree to the gist. I think the parent poster lightly tiptoed up to the real flaw in the article. As you mentioned it is vague, but why?
When I read it, I was impressed with the incisive commentary against some current IT practices. But, when it came to solutions it seemed very vague and referenced the fact that his consulting company teaches people to be (but not divulging how to be) in charge.
To be honest, putting two and two together here and I see a technical hit piece soft-selling consulting services. Perhaps I'm too churlish.
Without being churlish, he's written a piece where I can only say, I appreciate that he is smart but I didn't learn anything. Perhaps that was the goal, after all if I feel smarter for thinking what I already do, I'm half won.
In truth, being a peer and suggesting the right solution with confidence to sell is what a business really needs to do. The IT as a business paradigm, if it were understood with better business prowess by the IT staff, would lead to better dialog with business.
If he says anything (though he never came out and said it) is that if IT had real business sense to act as a business peer, they wouldn't act like peers -- they would be peers. They would be given more respect, they would be seen as the most integral part of their company, and they would know better what to sell and how to their internal customers.
Thus, the real message is simply to be smarter about business. Short of that, learn better business by acting more like a friend to business.
The author of the article was big on criticism, low on practical advice. For practical advice for what 99% of what techies get wrong in dealing with business, I suggest "The Personal Credibility Factor" by Sandy Allgeier. Read that and you'll understand better the cat that the article's author is keeping in the bag.
You may be to kind. If I remember right accusing them of "cheating" meant at one point fingering people standing in the back of the room sending psychic signals to jam his brain.
Take SG-1. Here we had a universe deliberately created without the need for space ships, and the usual captain to captain banter. But soon enough they had their own space ships, one of them even headed by General Hammond.
I tried it out yesterday, in fact. It works as advertised, which means many limitations. But it does translate Gmail to IMAP efficiently and effectively.
The two limitations are based on Gmail. You can't copy from another email address to Gmail, so it isn't an import tool. I don't know there is any way to simply import mail to Gmail (all I've seen is one that forwards all the mail in your mailbox). The other limitation is based in the different paradigms of folders and labels. iGmail handles labels as best as it can in the folder paradigm, but it takes some thought to get used to. Its pretty straight forward though.
I wonder what the author, or others might attribute to the IT industry that is a strain on a marriage.
I've had times that I need to choose between work and home, and I may not have as much lattitude in that decision in some ways as another profession. But I'm not sure what might be an issue more or less than another career.
As for myself, I feel pretty lucky that while things in the server room are working well I'm given quite a bit of lattitude to deal with family issues. Which is good considering the critical nature of many of these issues.
You've seemed to abandon your thesis and embraced mine. Thank you.
Is that so... Lets get this straight, they change a product by removing the names and distribute it as their own. And that is against my argument? This just continues to underline how confused you've become in this argument.
Also, Redhat's enforcement of their trademark is what keeps anyone from distributing another distribution as theirs or with their name on it. And this is true of Debian, althoug Debian allows people to distribute their distribution unchanged. The debian package website, IIRC displays check-sums on their packages so people can make sure they are unchanged.
You stated "Without patching the kernel, why would they have to call it another name?"
The answer is they don't have to. I'll remind you that question shows up only to underline a failure in your argument.
What distro uses the Linux kernel (patched or not) without calling it "Linux?"
And pointing out a failure (socratically) in your argument does not constitute a problem in mine:)
BTW, one answer to that is Redhat. They call it the "Redhat kernel" in their distribution of Redhat Linux. As Stallman argues linux conveys a unix like environment, as well as a kernel. Which is why Stallman is so adamant in having people call their distros GNU/Linux.
Which is what?
When you get this confused in a conversation, it really is time for you to ask someone you trust for help understanding it. My first comment in this article outlined my point.
since you've never argued that I was wise...
You decided to give us more examples to support that. If I'm allowed a little show-boating, you seem to have succeeded.
stated that copyright is an addition concern in this case. You've not refuted that.
That is because it would be an additional concern if even after Debian renames the distribution they try to borrow from the artwork to make something simular looking. But we aren't there yet. So far the issue is one of trademark, and it is doubtful that the copyright on the artwork will come into play. As long as they work within Firefox's design cycle, they can use both freely. If they don't then putting it in non-free does not help them at all.
You should review Dan Armstrong's argument above. He's as close to a Debian rep I've seen in this thread.
I have always said a copyright and trademark are separate.
As noted before, you seem to have a problem applying words like "constantly" and "always" where they are clearly false.
But you are closer to accurate now, and that is more important.
And it doesnot use the logo. It does use the trademark "Mozilla Firefox."
Both are trademarks, as noted previously.
Some generics are made and bottled by the same manufacturers as brand name products. For all intents and purposes, they are identical. That doesn't mean the trademark can be used to describe them.
You said it more accurately before, you don't have to use a trademark even on your own product. But a production is different than a distribution. A distribution is not allowed to tamper with trademarks or content without permission of the trademark owner. This is basic trademark law.
Coming at it another way, content of a pill is not copyrightable but source code is. Hence the makeup of what makes a producer vs a distributor is somewhat a wierd concept with IP vs real product. Debian knows the difference, they call their product a "distribution".
Centos, Whitebox etc... remove all trademarks and references to "RedHat" as per conditions of re-packaging their SRPMS. Debian can do the same, and probably will with Firefox.
Oh, and don't try to claim you've been trolled. You've made too many mistakes on basic concepts to make that fly.
I've made my point, and I haven't seen how your arguments have undermined it. All I've been doing is point out your non-sequitors. It seems to be helping you.
you've failed to understand that something can be protected simultaneously with copyright and trademark,
When you conflate a copyright and trademark, that does not make a problem in my argument. They are different protections for different purposes.
have failed to understand how the DFSG bars the image from entering Debian proper due to the copyright
Perhaps you should double checked if the mozilla-firefox package is in main or non-free before making that claim.
Mozilla said they would grant permission for trademark use on the contingency that the logo was also used.
The logo is a trademark.
Where is the side skirting you constantly refer to?
A search of this thread notes three instances of "side skirt". One by myself, one where you referenced that in a quotation, and another explicit reference. I'm not sure what about this warrants your use of "constantly".
Just because something is a duplication does not mean it is entitled to use the trademark.
Drug stores do not take Tylenol and put their own label on it. The issue you presented is one of distribution, not replication. Inability to track the details of your own argument does not represent a problem in mine.
Pre-fixing or post-fixing a trademark doesn't entitle you to use it either.
Except where it does. Even debian has a loose and stringent trademark logo. One solution presented to Mozilla is to use a simular strategy.
As exasperated you must be getting making mistake after mistake (ironically trying to save face) you've once again lost track of the conversation. Whether or not a alteration is sufficient (which is up to the particular trademark holder) none of them pass off their changes as the same as the real thing as Debian attempts with Firefox.
I maintain my own community edition of Firefox.
Which explains the adament appeal on your part. Perhaps you'd like to show a link to your project? Others as well as myself might find it fascinating.
I had thought you just didn't understand the finer points of the Mozilla/Debian dispute.
Now you are just grepping my post hoping to find something to use as a counter-invective. Zero points for origionality, zero points for application.
At this point you are flailing around hoping for some rope to climb out with. You can continue to flail if you wish, but I suggest you have someone you trust look at this thread to help you understand what happened here.
Whether or not you use it is inconsequential. However, it is consistent with my observation that not being familiar with something has not stopped you from commenting on it as an authority.
I know full well what a trademark is.
Yet nothing in this conversation seems to convey that.
I know full well what a trademark is. And I also know the DFSG doesn't care about them. At what point did I say anything to the contrary?
In discussing an issue of trademark enforcement under the same rules as copyright infringement.
The use of this copyrighted logo is required for trademark use. Therefore, they can't have something named "mozilla firefox" in the free tree.
But they [Mozilla] had granted Debian permission to use their trademark and have since revoked it.
The issue being over how that trademark is applied to code in a development cycle. There is no reasonable way to side skirt the mechanics of the issue in favor of looking at what resulted from it.
they're trying to comply with Mozilla's policies.... But they're not trying to break trademark law.
Usage of a trademark is under the terms of the owner of the trademark. That is the law. Hence the second part of your statement undermines the first.
What distro uses the Linux kernel (patched or not) without calling it "Linux?"
Wait. Stop.
Without patching the kernel, why would they have to call it another name? It is still rather amusing how important aspects of this keep slipping through your fingers. Even funnier, by calling it "Gentoo", "RedHat" etc... they are doing what you are saying they don't do.
I'm impressed that you try to pass off your apparent ignorance of the details of this particular case as some kind of superior knowledge of intellectual property law.
Just because it is protected under trademark law dowsn't mean that it can't also be protected under copyright law.
Its my general opinion of debianites that the most vocal are the most incompetant among them. This one in particular...
It has been fun watching this poster so blinded by the DFSG that they have no idea what a trademark is. They only know copyright and copy-left, and oddly enough this concept of trademark has escaped them. Technically everything can be, and to the most legally minded is copyrighted. Especially the artistic aspects of branding. But a copyright on artwork isn't the issue, it is the name "firefox" and its subsiquent trademark that Debian is chaffing against. Even without the copyrighted artwork, Debian would have to either comply with the design cycle by the managing body, or call it some other name.
As for me the issue was settled by Dan Armstrong above. It is free, and where it isn't free no change of position will help. What they are running afoul of is what people have accepted for years as simple courtesy.
Debian is demanding the right sink someone else's good name. It means they are affronted that someone might not like their patches, how dare they restrict what they put their name on. It means Debian has moved from demanding free software, to demanding entitlement to ruin others good names in the process. The good name is the trademark, and identified by branding artwork.
Technically when you modify software and re-distribute it, that is a fork. From Linus, to PADL, to even Microsoft they have the right to distribute their own revisions patches and code under their name. You can have the Red-hat Kernel, the Mandriva Kernel, and the Rock kernel. If you fork, it is yours and you call it your own name. Its the way free software has always worked. Amazing the attitude that beleagered souls such as the above poster come along and say it is all of a sudden unacceptable. The DFSG is the hammer, and every problem around them turns into a nail.
Debian, in contrast to those high on their cool-aid, is being very mature about this. They are simply claiming responsibilility for their own fork by calling it another name. The same way Ubuntu and Xandros do when forking Debian.
If every other dinosaur bone had soft tissue, this wouldn't be news.
That debate ended when we figured out carbon dating. The bones are old as their radioactivity says they are.
If this were a matter of carbon dating, then the fossils really are truely very young.
The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation.
The use of this copyrighted logo is required for trademark use.
That is like saying riding a bicycle is required for a drivers license.
Therefore, they can't have something named "mozilla firefox" in the free tree.
Again reference Debian's own policy on their own name as a trademark.
Debian isn't picking a fight at all.
I used to think that, given what I wrote above. But I don't anymore. It seems the Debian folks are picking a fight in attempting to fork a project without coming up with another name. Protecting their trademark from Debian's tampering is not picking a fight.
What is sad is how people are so kool-aid drunk that they try to see every issue of software through the DFSG. I believe that is a product of how much Debian has picked fights so much in the past that the debianites are getting into a rut in their warpath.
Slashdot Mirror
You just tiptoed up to a point that I think is most interesting.
Why would we assume the Russians would do this to support Trump, instead of the candidate who is a self proclaimed socialist, on the eve of his last logistical chance of getting the nomination, who was the one who was directly hurt by the exposed actions?
Now I might have my reasons but to take this question one step further, why would Hillary or the DNC assume this was to help Trump and not Bernie?
Not as cute as finding out one of the 4-digit ID's is On Lawn? ;)
Oh how wonderful to see this technology foretold so long ago.
Hmmm, there used to be the same thing for Window Maker, but I can't find it anymore.
It seems I'm a bit late to the party.
The only potential's I've seen in linux for this (aside from ZFS fuse already mentioned) is...
OHSM
CacheFS
If you want to do this in hardware, you can use MaxIQ from Adaptec which, IIRC, uses linux drivers to get this function from their storage controllers. There is also a few others, one of which only mirrors the first part of the hard drive.
I'll agree, but ultimately the problems arisen with cache consistency and the latency of the network in inhibiting that consistency makes such caching unfeasible.
And by new paradigm, you mean the emperor's new clothes?
The author clearly offered no new paradigm, only a slap on the back and a hardy "take charge and tell them what you really think". That is not discouraged by the "old" paradigm, nor is it a "new" paradigm.
We might be saying the same things, but the author of the article said little that helps, and nothing that promotes anything but hubris.
The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.
I don't think you understood what you read else you couldn't have come to the conclusion you have. Right now, "IT as a business", creates a multitude of barriers which by their very nature inhibit communication.
So he says, but the parent comment is right, any paradigm could suffer from the same barriers.
In many places this is actually by design and intent.
Not in my experience, which actually sees IT organizations dramatically misunderstanding the business paradigm they trying to adopt with the customer model. Many of the policies that many IT folks adopt in that paradigm would not make for a successful business or customer service experience.
There have been way to many /.ers who read the article and drank fully the kool-aid of criticism. Beguiled by the promise of being in charge, the consultant who casually alluded to (but never divulged) what he teaches, the ./ers seem to have entrenched even more against their foes rather then torn down barriers.
I'm convinced that the IT-as-a-business paradigm is not bad at all. But that those that adopt it forget the business sense at the center of it. I believe that might be the contradiction the parent comment is alluding to also.
The IT shop you mentioned is likely a very successful IT shop in maximizing the money they get, and minimizing the investment they have to make to get it. In fact it looks more like a way to be successful without really understanding business (which is what most techies want anyway).
But there are better ways of doing things. But it involves better understanding business, and when you better understand business they will in turn understand IT much better (because you are much better at communicating it to them).
I'll agree to the gist. I think the parent poster lightly tiptoed up to the real flaw in the article. As you mentioned it is vague, but why?
When I read it, I was impressed with the incisive commentary against some current IT practices. But, when it came to solutions it seemed very vague and referenced the fact that his consulting company teaches people to be (but not divulging how to be) in charge.
To be honest, putting two and two together here and I see a technical hit piece soft-selling consulting services. Perhaps I'm too churlish.
Without being churlish, he's written a piece where I can only say, I appreciate that he is smart but I didn't learn anything. Perhaps that was the goal, after all if I feel smarter for thinking what I already do, I'm half won.
In truth, being a peer and suggesting the right solution with confidence to sell is what a business really needs to do. The IT as a business paradigm, if it were understood with better business prowess by the IT staff, would lead to better dialog with business.
If he says anything (though he never came out and said it) is that if IT had real business sense to act as a business peer, they wouldn't act like peers -- they would be peers. They would be given more respect, they would be seen as the most integral part of their company, and they would know better what to sell and how to their internal customers.
Thus, the real message is simply to be smarter about business. Short of that, learn better business by acting more like a friend to business.
The author of the article was big on criticism, low on practical advice. For practical advice for what 99% of what techies get wrong in dealing with business, I suggest "The Personal Credibility Factor" by Sandy Allgeier. Read that and you'll understand better the cat that the article's author is keeping in the bag.
Good advice for a meeting. Speak softly and carry a big stick...
You may be to kind. If I remember right accusing them of "cheating" meant at one point fingering people standing in the back of the room sending psychic signals to jam his brain.
They still have good episodes, but for it isn't worth wading through to find them anymore.
I did think the farscape reference in their 200th(?) episode was funny though.
I agree completely.
Take SG-1. Here we had a universe deliberately created without the need for space ships, and the usual captain to captain banter. But soon enough they had their own space ships, one of them even headed by General Hammond.
With your help, we just installed a new Linux operating system!
***cue mariachi band music***
I still get a kick out of searching for "my first home page" to find old snapshots of early internet splendor.
Check out iGmail.
I tried it out yesterday, in fact. It works as advertised, which means many limitations. But it does translate Gmail to IMAP efficiently and effectively.
The two limitations are based on Gmail. You can't copy from another email address to Gmail, so it isn't an import tool. I don't know there is any way to simply import mail to Gmail (all I've seen is one that forwards all the mail in your mailbox). The other limitation is based in the different paradigms of folders and labels. iGmail handles labels as best as it can in the folder paradigm, but it takes some thought to get used to. Its pretty straight forward though.
I wonder what the author, or others might attribute to the IT industry that is a strain on a marriage.
I've had times that I need to choose between work and home, and I may not have as much lattitude in that decision in some ways as another profession. But I'm not sure what might be an issue more or less than another career.
As for myself, I feel pretty lucky that while things in the server room are working well I'm given quite a bit of lattitude to deal with family issues. Which is good considering the critical nature of many of these issues.
I miss old-school enlightenment.
Is that so... Lets get this straight, they change a product by removing the names and distribute it as their own. And that is against my argument? This just continues to underline how confused you've become in this argument.
Also, Redhat's enforcement of their trademark is what keeps anyone from distributing another distribution as theirs or with their name on it. And this is true of Debian, althoug Debian allows people to distribute their distribution unchanged. The debian package website, IIRC displays check-sums on their packages so people can make sure they are unchanged.
You stated "Without patching the kernel, why would they have to call it another name?"
The answer is they don't have to. I'll remind you that question shows up only to underline a failure in your argument.
I have always said a copyright and trademark are separate.
As noted before, you seem to have a problem applying words like "constantly" and "always" where they are clearly false.
But you are closer to accurate now, and that is more important.
And it doesnot use the logo. It does use the trademark "Mozilla Firefox."
Both are trademarks, as noted previously.
Some generics are made and bottled by the same manufacturers as brand name products. For all intents and purposes, they are identical. That doesn't mean the trademark can be used to describe them.
You said it more accurately before, you don't have to use a trademark even on your own product. But a production is different than a distribution. A distribution is not allowed to tamper with trademarks or content without permission of the trademark owner. This is basic trademark law.
Coming at it another way, content of a pill is not copyrightable but source code is. Hence the makeup of what makes a producer vs a distributor is somewhat a wierd concept with IP vs real product. Debian knows the difference, they call their product a "distribution".
Centos, Whitebox etc... remove all trademarks and references to "RedHat" as per conditions of re-packaging their SRPMS. Debian can do the same, and probably will with Firefox.
Oh, and don't try to claim you've been trolled. You've made too many mistakes on basic concepts to make that fly.
I've made my point, and I haven't seen how your arguments have undermined it. All I've been doing is point out your non-sequitors. It seems to be helping you.
More errors you should address:
you've failed to understand that something can be protected simultaneously with copyright and trademark,
When you conflate a copyright and trademark, that does not make a problem in my argument. They are different protections for different purposes.
have failed to understand how the DFSG bars the image from entering Debian proper due to the copyright
Perhaps you should double checked if the mozilla-firefox package is in main or non-free before making that claim.
Mozilla said they would grant permission for trademark use on the contingency that the logo was also used.
The logo is a trademark.
Where is the side skirting you constantly refer to?
A search of this thread notes three instances of "side skirt". One by myself, one where you referenced that in a quotation, and another explicit reference. I'm not sure what about this warrants your use of "constantly".
Just because something is a duplication does not mean it is entitled to use the trademark.
Drug stores do not take Tylenol and put their own label on it. The issue you presented is one of distribution, not replication. Inability to track the details of your own argument does not represent a problem in mine.
Pre-fixing or post-fixing a trademark doesn't entitle you to use it either.
Except where it does. Even debian has a loose and stringent trademark logo. One solution presented to Mozilla is to use a simular strategy.
As exasperated you must be getting making mistake after mistake (ironically trying to save face) you've once again lost track of the conversation. Whether or not a alteration is sufficient (which is up to the particular trademark holder) none of them pass off their changes as the same as the real thing as Debian attempts with Firefox.
I maintain my own community edition of Firefox.
Which explains the adament appeal on your part. Perhaps you'd like to show a link to your project? Others as well as myself might find it fascinating.
I had thought you just didn't understand the finer points of the Mozilla/Debian dispute.
Now you are just grepping my post hoping to find something to use as a counter-invective. Zero points for origionality, zero points for application.
At this point you are flailing around hoping for some rope to climb out with. You can continue to flail if you wish, but I suggest you have someone you trust look at this thread to help you understand what happened here.
Whether or not you use it is inconsequential. However, it is consistent with my observation that not being familiar with something has not stopped you from commenting on it as an authority.
I know full well what a trademark is.
Yet nothing in this conversation seems to convey that.
I know full well what a trademark is. And I also know the DFSG doesn't care about them. At what point did I say anything to the contrary?
In discussing an issue of trademark enforcement under the same rules as copyright infringement.
But they [Mozilla] had granted Debian permission to use their trademark and have since revoked it.
The issue being over how that trademark is applied to code in a development cycle. There is no reasonable way to side skirt the mechanics of the issue in favor of looking at what resulted from it.
they're trying to comply with Mozilla's policies.
Usage of a trademark is under the terms of the owner of the trademark. That is the law. Hence the second part of your statement undermines the first.
What distro uses the Linux kernel (patched or not) without calling it "Linux?"
Wait. Stop.
Without patching the kernel, why would they have to call it another name? It is still rather amusing how important aspects of this keep slipping through your fingers. Even funnier, by calling it "Gentoo", "RedHat" etc... they are doing what you are saying they don't do.
I'm impressed that you try to pass off your apparent ignorance of the details of this particular case as some kind of superior knowledge of intellectual property law.
Even funnier.
Just because it is protected under trademark law dowsn't mean that it can't also be protected under copyright law.
Its my general opinion of debianites that the most vocal are the most incompetant among them. This one in particular...
It has been fun watching this poster so blinded by the DFSG that they have no idea what a trademark is. They only know copyright and copy-left, and oddly enough this concept of trademark has escaped them. Technically everything can be, and to the most legally minded is copyrighted. Especially the artistic aspects of branding. But a copyright on artwork isn't the issue, it is the name "firefox" and its subsiquent trademark that Debian is chaffing against. Even without the copyrighted artwork, Debian would have to either comply with the design cycle by the managing body, or call it some other name.
As for me the issue was settled by Dan Armstrong above. It is free, and where it isn't free no change of position will help. What they are running afoul of is what people have accepted for years as simple courtesy.
Debian is demanding the right sink someone else's good name. It means they are affronted that someone might not like their patches, how dare they restrict what they put their name on. It means Debian has moved from demanding free software, to demanding entitlement to ruin others good names in the process. The good name is the trademark, and identified by branding artwork.
Technically when you modify software and re-distribute it, that is a fork. From Linus, to PADL, to even Microsoft they have the right to distribute their own revisions patches and code under their name. You can have the Red-hat Kernel, the Mandriva Kernel, and the Rock kernel. If you fork, it is yours and you call it your own name. Its the way free software has always worked. Amazing the attitude that beleagered souls such as the above poster come along and say it is all of a sudden unacceptable. The DFSG is the hammer, and every problem around them turns into a nail.
Debian, in contrast to those high on their cool-aid, is being very mature about this. They are simply claiming responsibilility for their own fork by calling it another name. The same way Ubuntu and Xandros do when forking Debian.
If every other dinosaur bone had soft tissue, this wouldn't be news.
That debate ended when we figured out carbon dating. The bones are old as their radioactivity says they are.
If this were a matter of carbon dating, then the fossils really are truely very young.
The copyright on the logo makes it non-free.
Logos are under trademark law.
The use of this copyrighted logo is required for trademark use.
That is like saying riding a bicycle is required for a drivers license.
Therefore, they can't have something named "mozilla firefox" in the free tree.
Again reference Debian's own policy on their own name as a trademark.
Debian isn't picking a fight at all.
I used to think that, given what I wrote above. But I don't anymore. It seems the Debian folks are picking a fight in attempting to fork a project without coming up with another name. Protecting their trademark from Debian's tampering is not picking a fight.
What is sad is how people are so kool-aid drunk that they try to see every issue of software through the DFSG. I believe that is a product of how much Debian has picked fights so much in the past that the debianites are getting into a rut in their warpath.