[Arm-netbook] How much to design A20 board?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Philip Hands <phil at hands.com> wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>> <lkcl at 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_Debian_project
>
> 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.  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.

> 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? :)

l.