Wouter Verhelst wrote on 18/07/2006 11:37:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:04:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
If there WERE anything that said that modified versions of Debian must
be avavilable for free download, it would mean that
The aspect of all this focused on Debian trademark
protection is for the wonderful folks who own the trademark to consider. I think
one point was that business minded folks will probably make some judgments
on use of Debian based on your protection of the trademark, and implied int hat
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 04:31:00PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
On the other hand the GPL, and most packages will be GPLed, requires
that source be available in one of three ways:
3a) include source
3b) accompany it with a written offer good
--- Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
the claim that Debian can be downloaded is a simple statement
of fact which just happens to be true as a byproduct of the way
we create Debian, it is not a promise.
If I can't trust what I can read on Debian.org, then I'll stop using Debian
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 23:28]:
Companies like RHAT are defending vigurously their brand. It
seems Debian has more lax approaches. Definitely, *their* lawyers are
better than *yours*.
Perhaps Debian just has a different approach how to deal with other
people.
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU:
Please provide legal references for the responsibilities that you
persist in claiming someone has. To whom do you think those
responsibilities are owed?
If you don't care about your brand, you'll lose the respect of your
partners.
Well, you don't gain their respect
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060718 09:38]:
I'm the customer, being it a customer of a free product. If I'm a customer of
Mercedes Benz, and I notice that a modified car is still labeled Mercedes
(and *not* Ssang Yong, powered by Mercedes engines, but simply Mercedes),
I'm
* Andreas Barth:
Does that sound like a wrong thing only to me?
No, this whole thread is rather bizarre. It would be very sad if
someone reading it got the impression that this is the way the Debian
project interacts with other organizations, especially commercial
entities.
--
To
#include hallo.h
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [Tue, Jul 18 2006, 03:38:32AM]:
Too bad that the moist important GNU/Linux project and the most important
GNU/Linux community can't afford a good lawyer to explain you how to protect
your mark.
Like Henning Makholm said, it's better not having me as
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 03:38:32AM -0400, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
--- Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
the claim that Debian can be downloaded is a simple statement
of fact which just happens to be true as a byproduct of the way
we create Debian, it is not a promise.
If I
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:04:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
If there WERE anything that said that modified versions of Debian must
be avavilable for free download, it would mean that something is
seriously, horribly,
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
You never said how comes that something labeled Debian should *not* be
available as free download, as long as debian.org says Debian GNU/Linux
is available for free download!
There
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your analysis here is fatally flawed. First of all, requiring name changes
for modified versions is *explicitly* free: it's codified in DFSG #4, and
it's the only way that anyone could ever maintain a trademark in relation to
Free Software.
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 03:38:32AM -0400, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
--- Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
the claim that Debian can be downloaded is a simple statement
of fact which just happens to be true as a byproduct of the way
we
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 04:31:00PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 03:38:32AM -0400, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
--- Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
the claim that Debian can be downloaded is a simple
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 03:38:32AM -0400, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
--- Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
the claim that Debian can be downloaded is a simple statement
of fact which just happens to be true as a byproduct of the way
we create Debian, it is not a promise.
If
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
That was done by me for Cebit, like we did for some other years already.
Well, it seems to lack the proper labeling then.
-legal is the wrong list for this, there is no legal issue behind that.
--- Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
But it says Debian sarge special,
As you can see the facts from the web page:
http://www.linux-magazin.de/Produkte/Bestellen/lm_04_06_dvd.html
things can be terribly misleading:
1. You can see DVD-ausgabe mit Debian Sarge.
There is *no* Spezial or
Scripsit Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But for the people who *erroneously* believed it's an official release
(something like 3.1r3 or something), they could have asked for a free
download to be available.
That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them to
That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them
to anything.
This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
misuse of its trademarks.
I can see on the DVD cover: Debian Sarge. This is all you can see on both
the cover and the DVD. I'm going them
Scripsit Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
misuse of its trademarks.
You are the only one who thinks that a trademark is being misused.
You are wrong.
Not finding any download location, all I can imagine is
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 12:20:59AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10717 March 1977, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
2. It clearly contains packages not on the official update list. AFAIK,
backports like FF1.5 and X.org are not _official_ for Sarge.
Yes, where is the problem?
Before I go on
On 10718 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, they attached it to the Magazine. And gave us a good number of
dvds for free.
When posting on such questions using your debian.org email address, please
try to be clear about what us you're referring to. I have never heard
that LinuxMagazin
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 19:54 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
You are the only one who thinks that a trademark is being misused.
You are wrong.
You are not in court. Neither of us has the right to declare the other
is wrong.
I am *not* the only one -- I am only one with such a blunt language.
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 10:26]:
--- Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
No, it isn't labelled sarge.
As I can see from the _pictures_ (magazine cover + DVD), it's labeled Debian
Sarge very prominently.
Well, the print on the cover is not optimal, but I'm
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 19:04]:
That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them
to anything.
This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
misuse of its trademarks.
This rather sounds like a trollish remark to
Scripsit Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 19:54 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
You are the only one who thinks that a trademark is being misused.
You are wrong.
You are not in court. Neither of us has the right to declare the other
is wrong.
You can be wrong
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Because I suppose that if I made up my own modified Debian and I'm
sticking it to a magazine and label it Debian Sarge, enhanced, I could
be sued for that.
You can always be sued, but if you could _lose_ the suit, it would
--- Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Been there, done that. That's the DVD we created for this years CeBIT
Who we? Is this officially backed by the Debian Project?
IIRC we left the original sarge packages on the DVD;
the backports are optional.
The advertisment doesn't say
--- Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
That was done by me for Cebit, like we did for some other years already.
Well, it seems to lack the proper labeling then.
-legal is the wrong list for this, there is no legal issue behind that.
I thought this is not official!
1. The magazine (on
On 10717 March 1977, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
2. It clearly contains packages not on the official update list. AFAIK,
backports like FF1.5 and X.org are not _official_ for Sarge.
Yes, where is the problem?
Before I go on answering some small points in your mail - you do
remember that
Before I go on answering some small points in your mail - you do
remember that Debian is actually free for anyone? Including freedom
of changing it?
...
I guess you misunderstand something very much.
Sorry to say, I wasn't born yesterday either.
Debian must have some rights reserved for
32 matches
Mail list logo
