Re: GihHub style logo license

[Jérémy Lal]

Le sam. 22 janv. 2022 à 21:04, Yadd  a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Some logos have now GihHub style license. There is at least one non-DFSG
> constraint, but is there some exceptions for logo (ie trademark)?
>
> Example :
>
> How to Use These Logos
> Do these awesome things
> ✅ Use the WebAuthn logo to link to WebAuthn specs or webauthn.org
> ✅ Use the WebAuthn logo to show that your product or project has built-in
> WebAuthn integration
> ✅ Use the WebAuthn logo in a blog post or news article about WebAuthn
>
> Please don't do these things
> ❌ Use the WebAuthn logo for your application’s icon
> ❌ Create a modified version of the WebAuthn logo
> ❌ Integrate the WebAuthn logo into your logo
> ❌ Use any WebAuthn artwork without permission
> ❌ Sell any WebAuthn artwork without permission
> ❌ Change the colors, dimensions or add your own text/images
>

Could you give a link to the full text version of this license ? (or a copy
if it's short)

Re: identifying that simple permissive license

[Jérémy Lal]

2018-04-28 13:36 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal <kapo...@melix.org>:

> In zlib documentation i found this license in these two files:
> doc/rfc1951.txt
> doc/rfc1952.txt
> Copyright: 1996, L.Peter Deutsch
>  Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document for any
>  purpose and without charge, including translations into other
>  languages and incorporation into compilations, provided that the
>  copyright notice and this notice are preserved, and that any
>  substantive changes or deletions from the original are clearly
>  marked.
>
> I suppose it is a DFSG-compatible license ?
> Anyway i fail to find it elsewhere. Is this an original one ?
>

Please ignore my question, it's been discussed before:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/03/msg00044.html

Jérémy

identifying that simple permissive license

[Jérémy Lal]

In zlib documentation i found this license in these two files:
doc/rfc1951.txt
doc/rfc1952.txt
Copyright: 1996, L.Peter Deutsch
 Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document for any
 purpose and without charge, including translations into other
 languages and incorporation into compilations, provided that the
 copyright notice and this notice are preserved, and that any
 substantive changes or deletions from the original are clearly
 marked.

I suppose it is a DFSG-compatible license ?
Anyway i fail to find it elsewhere. Is this an original one ?

Thanks,

Jérémy

Re: French gov open license

[Jérémy Lal]

Hi Xavier,

I don't think there is such a thing named "recognized by DFSG".
A license can pass DFSG or not, and this one, after reading it,
seems to be okay.
Hopefully more experimented eyes will read it too.

IANAL,
Jérémy (x97).




2017-11-21 18:35 GMT+01:00 Xavier :

> Hi all,
>
> French government uses now lo/ol license to publish its open datas:
> https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Open_Licence.pdf
>
> "To facilitate the re-use of the « Information », this licence has been
> designed to be compatible with any licence which requires at least the
> attribution of the « Information ». For instance, it is compatible with
> the « Open Government Licence » (OGL) of the United Kingdom, the «
> Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 » (CC-BY 2.0) licence of Creative
> Commons and the « Open Data Commons Attribution » (ODC-BY) licence of
> the Open Knowledge Foundation."
>
> Can it be recognize by DFSG ?
>
> Regards,
> Xavier
>
>

what to think of these patents grants (from facebook, google) ?

[Jérémy Lal]

http://polymer.github.io/PATENTS.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebook/react/master/PATENTS

(They are similar)

It's unclear to me if they render their otherwise osi-approved license
DFSG-free or not. Thank you for any light on this.

Jérémy

Re: MIT code embedded into GPL-3+ library

[Jérémy Lal]

On 06/06/2013 07:40, Ondřej Surý wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I am working on packaging ccnet[1] library (requirement for seafile),
 and the upstream code has two licenses in the base directory - MIT
 and GPL-3+.
 
 When I asked for clarification they have replied the code is GPL-3+
 with some parts reused from some other project which was MIT
 licensed.
 
 Unfortunatelly the individual source files are not licensed, so it's
 unclear to me what's the license of the files and the packages as
 whole.

I did not think this was debian-legal matter so i replied at
http://bugs.debian.org/698681

Jérémy.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51b05ab4@melix.org

Public Domain again

[Jérémy Lal]

http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
http://opensource.org/faq#cc0

Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
on the country you're in. What if that country applies
laws that violate DFSG ?

Please enlighten me.

Jérémy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/510a78e2.4070...@melix.org

Re: Public Domain again

[Jérémy Lal]

On 31/01/2013 19:45, MJ Ray wrote:
 Jérémy.
 Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
 on the country you're in. What if that country applies
 laws that violate DFSG ?

 Please enlighten me.
 
 Why?  Does this affect any software that you're packaging?

Not particularly. Some packages i can see sometimes have public domain
files in them.
 
 Short answer: any software in that country is not free software, but the
 bug is with the country's legal system, not Debian.

Will you still be uploading to main, if one day it becomes illegal
in your own country ?

Jérémy.

 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/510abe44.9090...@melix.org

Re: Public Domain again

[Jérémy Lal]

On 31/01/2013 23:16, Ben Finney wrote:
 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
 
 Will you still be uploading to main, if one day it becomes illegal
 in your own country ?
 
 Are you taking a poll? Or is there particular interest in MJ Ray's
 answer?

No.

 What is the actual issue you're addressing with starting this thread?

My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG, and the
consequence is that i cannot handle it properly in debian packages.
For example, reading [0]:

 When the License field in a paragraph has the short name public-domain,
 the remaining lines of the field must explain exactly what exemption the
 corresponding files for that paragraph have from default copyright
 restrictions.

This debian/copyright paragraph doesn't follow that requirement :

 Files: *
 License: public-domain

How can i tell it's a mistake if i can't explain what's wrong ?

Jérémy.

[0]
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#public-domain


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/510b043a.7060...@melix.org

Re: Public Domain again

[Jérémy Lal]

On 01/02/2013 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
 On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
 My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
 
 If a work can actually be placed into the public domain

Does this mean there are cases where the work cannot actually
be placed into the public domain ?

To be practical, are these files all right to be listed
as 'public-domain' in debian/copyright :

* without copyright notice
* with a short notice
  'There is no licence for this, I don't care what you do with it'
* without copyright notice, and an explicit
  'this code is under public domain'
* the same as above, but with a copyright name year next to it,
  (i made that last example, to be sure i get it)

 then that usually means that it has no copyright, and therefore automatically
 satisfies the DFSG so long as there is source.
 
 In countries where this isn't the case,[1] then it may not, but Debian
 has never claimed to be able to work around all countries broken legal
 systems.
 Beyond that, I'm afraid I'm unable to follow what you're asking for,
 exactly.

I would have been clearer by asking an answer about the examples above...
Sorry for the noise.

Jérémy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/510b149a.2080...@melix.org

Re: licensing question for nom.tam.fits

[Jérémy Lal]

On 03/12/2012 10:38, Florian Rothmaier wrote:
 Hi Jérémy,
 
 
 Am 01.12.2012 12:28, schrieb Jérémy Lal:
 
 I thought public-domain wasn't DFSG (because it's not in some countries).
 
 That's interesting and something new to me. The public domain
 is listed on the page
 http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses ,
 and if you look for instance at the copyright file of the
 sqlite3 package
 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/sqlite3/sqlite3_3.7.3-1/sqlite3.copyright
  ,
 you will see that the sources are in the public domain.
 
 Is this package targeted at non-free ?
 
 I hope it doesn't have to go to non-free.

I was wrong, sorry. Still, i had that sentence from [1] in mind :
  
  US law, for instance, makes it essentially impossible to place something
  in the public domain via any mechanism other than dying and waiting 75 years
  (or whatever it is now).

Jérémy.


[1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/08/msg5.html



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: licensing question for nom.tam.fits

[Jérémy Lal]

On 01/12/2012 12:17, Francesco Poli wrote:
 On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:47:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
 
 Le Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :

 P.P.S.: I am not sure what you should write in the Copyright field for
 the upstream files, but (c) 1996-2012 by Thomas A. McGlynn does not
 look right, as long as the upstream work is really in the public domain
 (which, as you probably know, means that the work is *not* subject to
 copyright!)...
 The machine-readable debian/copyright file format specification v1.0
 (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/)
 is not too clear on this point, unfortunately...
 Maybe you should ask on the debian-policy mailing list and suggest that
 this topic should be clarified in the specification.

 Hi Francesco,
 
 Hi Charles!
 

 the 1.0 specification mentions for the Copyright field:

   If a work has no copyright holder (i.e., it is in the public domain), that
   information should be recorded here.
 
 Yes, I had read that, but it didn't seem too clear to me.
 
 Since one of the standard short names for the License field is
 public-domain, I thought that specifying
 
   Copyright: public-domain
   License: public-domain
[explanation of why the files are in the public domain...]
 
 was awkward and redundant.
 
 Hence, I wondered what should be put in the Copyright field when the
 License field says public-domain...
 

 Inspecting Debian copyright files from
 svn://anonscm.debian.org/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ I see that many chose
 contents such as none, nobody, public-domain, not relevant, etc, 
 which
 I think are good enough, given that the content of the Copyright field is
 free-form.
 
 OK, so maybe
 
   Copyright: none
   License: public-domain
[explanation of why the files are in the public domain...]
 
 is the way to go.
 
 I just wish that the 1.0 specification were more explicit on this
 point...


I thought public-domain wasn't DFSG (because it's not in some countries).
Is this package targeted at non-free ?

Jérémy.






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

node-inherits...

[Jérémy Lal]

https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/112807f2

Author switched to WTFPL2, solving the problem.

Jérémy.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f6bb39f.8010...@melix.org

Re: license question

[Jérémy Lal]

On 17/03/2012 01:18, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
 could anyone help me resolve this license question :
 https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
 
 That page contains more than one question.

If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs,
i can consider i answered him.

Any idea ?

Jérémy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f643fde.2070...@melix.org

Re: license question

[Jérémy Lal]

On 17/03/2012 16:14, Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
 If, on contact, his goal is just wide-openness delivered in an
 eccentric license, then I would recommend the WTFPL v2 located at
 http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ which basically says you can do anything you
 want to with the software. Its an eccentric license that is Debian
 compliant, and wide open.

I came to the same conclusion.

 Otherwise, I'd probably point them in the
 direction of the BSD or zlib licenses, which are wide open as well,
 but more well known.
 
 If he doesn't want to part with his license, you could also try to ask
 for him to dual license as a last resort. His license along side a
 DFSG license, such that person receiving the software can choose
 either... that may work. 
 If they don't wish to relicense or dual license with a Debian friendly
 alternative, then yes, reimplementation under a better license.

I was just doing that.

Jérémy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f64ad40.40...@melix.org

Re: license question

[Jérémy Lal]

On 17/03/2012 11:14, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors
 timo.lindf...@iki.fi wrote:
 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
 If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs,
 i can consider i answered him.

 That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what he really wants. Is
 
 What he really wants is to be obtuse.  Just read his responses to
 commenters on that page.  If, through his obstinance, he's not going
 to freely license his software, then do ask he asks and,
 
 [Sit] down and [think] about the problem for an hour or less, [and] probably
 come up with exactly [his] solution.
 
 He's not worth bothering with.  Just re-impliment whatever it is he's
 done, license it properly, and move on.
 

I just did that.

Thanks for the advices everyone.

Jérémy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f64d6ed.7070...@melix.org

license question

[Jérémy Lal]

Hi,
could anyone help me resolve this license question :
https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca

i'm not smart enough to grasp what the author wants in that case.

Jérémy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f63d3ad.20...@melix.org

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] MIT +no-false-attribs

[Jérémy Lal]

On 10/03/2012 01:23, Ben Finney wrote:
 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
 
 On 09/03/2012 23:14, Ben Finney wrote:
 On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
 
 In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of
 Debian Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's
 working. The fact that npm is not in the distro is worse for the
 distro than it is for npm.

 That's certainly not going to help in any discussions to work with
 Debian. Maybe we would be best respecting the copyright holder's
 clearly stated wishes to keep this work out of Debian.

 What he implies is that he'd rather keep npm in debian unstable.
 
 Jose Luis Rivas ghost...@debian.org writes:
 
 As far as I'm concerned, and reading the answer from the copyright
 holder, he just wishes not to be bug by any change from the
 distro-side.
 
 Jérémy and Jose, you are reading Isaac's words in a way I can't
 understand.

We are just reading between the lines. I may be wrong, but i think
he's just saying it with bad faith. Here's the kind of guy we're dealing with :
https://github.com/isaacs/npm/issues/533


 Isaac is clear about his intent for the effect of the license: “if the
 terms of this license keep npm out of Debian Stable, or any particular
 distro, then that means it's working.”
 
 That's not “he'd rather keep npm in Debian unstable”, since he also
 wants the work to remain out of “any particular distro”. Keeping the
 work in Debian unstable does not meet that intent.
 
 That's not “he just wishes not to be bugged” – yes, he wishes not to be
 bugged, but he goes further: he states that it is an intent of the
 license to keep the package out of “any particular distro”.
 
 
 It would be nice to believe what you are both saying, but Isaac's words
 contradict that belief. He is explicitly stating he does not want the
 package in Debian “or any particular distro”. He is explicitly stating
 that's an intent of the license terms.
 
 I think we should honour that intent, since the upstream attitude is
 surely an indicator that they will resist any requests to make the work
 easier to package in Debian.

Should he take more obvious measures, i'd say yes.
My preference goes to sharing the npm packaging work to other debian users,
but i also can do that on a private repository - that's what he wants.
Anyway right now it's only at the discussion level.
His license terms are not against DFSG, are they ?

Jérémy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5b255f.8090...@melix.org

Re: MIT +no-false-attribs

[Jérémy Lal]

On 24/01/2012 15:24, MJ Ray wrote:
 Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com
 following npm license is Expat + one restriction,
 is it still DFSG ?
 
 If it just this one addition:
 Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used
 by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software,
 containing modifications that substantially alter, remove, or
 disable functionality of the Software, outside of the documented
 configuration mechanisms provided by the Software, shall be
 modified such that the Author's bug reporting email addresses and
 urls are either replaced with the contact information of the
 parties responsible for the changes, or removed entirely.
 
 Then I feel that would be acceptable under DFSG 4 but it's not exact
 and I have not looked for similar examples in the archive.
 
 The wording could be better and suggests a need to consult a lawyer.
 Actually, as a quick fix, could you just remove the undefined word
 Author's from it?
 
 Hope that helps,

After some exchanges, it appears the author welcomes clarifications to
its addition to the license.

In the latest version, Author has been replaced by Original Author,
and that term defined in the copyright line :
https://raw.github.com/isaacs/npm/master/LICENSE

To be honest, i have been bad at arguing with him; here's his last reply :

On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
 On 06/03/2012 18:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
 I would recommend upstream to not try hack legalese but instead
 simply document clearly a friendly _request_ to do do same as now
 codified in license.
 However, it is clearly in Debian's interest, and not in mine, so it
 is not reasonable for me to comply with it. The goal is to prevent
 distros from clobbering my software and letting me handle the
 fallout. Friendly requests in the past have gone unheeded by several
 different groups, some of which asserted that they have the right to
 direct bug reports to me, claiming that it's *my* responsibility to
 make my software work with their distribution (after they've modified
 it without my knowledge!) The only thing that distros pay any
 attention to is LICENSE files, so that what I use here. (Evidenced
 clearly by the degree of attention that has been paid to it in this
 case - would anyone care if it was a plain old MIT?) If a particular
 person or distribution would like a special dispensation to disable
 or alter features in npm, and to then distribute their modified copy
 without changing the name, then they may ask for that directly, and
 we can perhaps work something out, whereby they take ownership of
 their changes, clearly communicate them to users, and perhaps even
 rebrand the software as a downstream fork. If a distro wishes to
 alter or disable features of npm, and does *not* wish to take
 ownership of their changes, then it would be better for me if they
 did not include npm in their distribution. Linux users can already
 install npm quite easily from source. Debian users can get it from
 Chris Lea's PPA, which does not alter the source code, and thus has
 no problem complying with the license. Mac and PC users can get it
 automatically along with the node binary installers. Anyone who
 installs node from source gets it by default. In other words, if the
 terms of this license keep npm out of Debian Stable, or any
 particular distro, then that means it's working. The fact that npm is
 not in the distro is worse for the distro than it is for npm.

This is not encouraging, despite that :

* it is really easy to comply with this license.
* the bug-reporting contacts can be changed easily
* they don't need to be changed anyway, the npm debian package won't need
  any patch (i mean the one being prepared, version 1.1.x, not the one in sid,
  which is outdated)
* the author knows perfectly well i'm willing to distribute npm unpatched,
  since we've talked this through a while ago.

What can i do from now on ?

Jérémy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5a22f2.2060...@melix.org

Re: MIT +no-false-attribs

[Jérémy Lal]

On 09/03/2012 23:14, Ben Finney wrote:
 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
 
 On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
 In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of Debian
 Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's working. The
 fact that npm is not in the distro is worse for the distro than it
 is for npm.
 
 That's certainly not going to help in any discussions to work with
 Debian. Maybe we would be best respecting the copyright holder's clearly
 stated wishes to keep this work out of Debian.

What he implies is that he'd rather keep npm in debian unstable.
For now that will automatically happen, because it depends on the
RC-buggy nodejs package.
We can do the same for npm and keep it in unstable until its author
is okay with long-term support.

Jérémy.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5a93c9.6070...@melix.org

MIT +no-false-attribs

[Jérémy Lal]

Hi,
following npm license is Expat + one restriction,
is it still DFSG ?

Regards,
Jérémy.


MIT +no-false-attribs License

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the Software), to deal in the Software without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used
by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software,
containing modifications that substantially alter, remove, or
disable functionality of the Software, outside of the documented
configuration mechanisms provided by the Software, shall be
modified such that the Author's bug reporting email addresses and
urls are either replaced with the contact information of the
parties responsible for the changes, or removed entirely.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f1de594.8000...@edagames.com

Re: MIT +no-false-attribs

[Jérémy Lal]

On 24/01/2012 01:51, Paul Wise wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Jérémy Lal wrote:
 
 following npm license is Expat + one restriction,
 
 License proliferation is bad, please help get rid of it by asking
 upstream to switch to a standard license.

I will, and concur. But knowing upstream i can tell he'll need stronger 
arguments.

Jérémy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f1e016e.2000...@edagames.com

node.js has a trademark now

[Jérémy Lal]

Hi,
nodejs is packaged in debian [0], along with libnode-* modules [1]
Today the company owning nodejs announced a new trademark policy [2].

I understand that :
* the logo is not a problem, i just have to remove it from the source
  package (it is not in the binary package)
* the TM symbol must be added in places where Node.js, nodejs, node are
  written. Can they really trademark the node name ?!?
* all node modules must have the following sentence in their copyright :
Node.js is an official trademark of Joyent.
This module is not formally related to or endorsed by the official Joyent
Node.js open source or commercial project.

Is that right ? are there more changes to do to stay DFSG ?

Regards,
Jérémy Lal


[0]
http://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nodejs.html
[1]
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libnodesearchon=namessuite=unstablesection=all
[2]
http://nodejs.org/trademark-policy.pdf


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dba5968.4020...@melix.org