Hi,
On Sat, 07.04.2007 at 01:40:02 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What rock have you been hiding under for the past two years while there has
been an ongoing, project-wide discussion about how to handle our logos in a
manner that allows us to protect trademarks while
Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
Please escalate this to the DPL and/or SPI. He certainly doesn't have a
legal right to use that logo,
[...]
I agree with Steve that the Debian Official Use Logo is used in a way
that is not allowed by the license published at
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:01:53 +0200 Toni Mueller wrote:
[...]
On Sat, 07.04.2007 at 01:40:02 -0700, Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What rock have you been hiding under for the past two years while
there has been an ongoing, project-wide discussion about how to
handle our logos in
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 20:50:27 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to
previous drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
GPLv2... :-(
Hi,
(Sorry if this is a dup - I tried to post this a while ago, but it
didn't seem to make it to the list - so I'm trying again...)
I was just investigating why MySQL Query Analyzer's Help/Contents does
not work and digging around for relevant bugs. It seems that this part
is effectively the
Yeargh. I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention in February and didn't see that
Wiki
page.
Look, we know what we want to do.
(1) License the *copyright* freely as usual.
(2) Restrict the *trademark* with traditional trademark restrictions only:
it may not be used for deliberate palming off, but
MJ Ray wrote:
Please can someone explain to me how this use of the official logo
doesn't satisfy the licence? It seems to be used to promote sales
of official CDs which are clearly labelled which parts are official.
Is the complaint that the logo is positioned in a confusing way (by
the menu
7 matches
Mail list logo
