Nick Phillips wrote:
After all, the same kind of thing is fine for TeX, LaTeX, Apache
What are the exact restriction we have to follow when distributing apache? Where
is this documented? Are those restrictions attached to the copyright file?
Cheers,
Alex
--
GPG messages preferred. | .''`.
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
available under the GPL. Is
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:25:11PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR
1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes
mostly-minor differences (some
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
Is Debian's trademark policy freedom-restricting? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under review?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
have a different view.
So why this package is in
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:26:55PM +0100, Bjoern wrote:
i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
have a different view.
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I should admit that I don't know anything about such copyright law,
however I think that as long it is just a drawing without any
copyrighted logo, it's not a problem.
A quick look over these pictures suggests no *copyright* problems.
They look like
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:41:16 +0100, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
^^
I
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I should admit that I don't know anything about such copyright law,
however I think that as long it is just a drawing without any
copyrighted logo, it's not a problem.
A
[I'll not Cc: you Aurelian, as I assume you'll get this from the BTS
anyway. Others: If you stop Cc:'ing the bug, you'll probably need to
Cc: the maintainer.]
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
I recently package and uploaded openclipart [1], an open clipart
library. The package has
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:59:38AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
can go there. For Rubik it is a little more difficult to find another
work, and I am almost sure this word is used somewhere in Debian.
After a quick look on google, it seems that Rubik is not a registred
trademark, but Rubik's Cube
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:16:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
[I'll not Cc: you Aurelian, as I assume you'll get this from the BTS
anyway. Others: If you stop Cc:'ing the bug, you'll probably need to
Cc: the maintainer.]
I am subscribed to the list, so don't need to Cc: me. For the BTS, if
the
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:36:34AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Considering all of that, I think the hummer files could be a problem as
the filename states that the artist wanted to draw a hummer car. As
HUMMER is a registered trademark of General Motors Corporation, it may
be a problem.
It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 (
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
by the upstream don't get downrated. But in my
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:32:32AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
This problem has been resolved by discussion with the copyright owner of
the image files in question. The website that the images were
originally distributed from [1] now has a license statement for the
windows screensaver
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 06:04:36 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry this is so long and meandering...
By comparison with some of the things I write, it's a model of
linearity. :) But my response is necessarily long as well.
I wrote:
There's a reason I used the analogy of You
Generally, one can't succeed on a Lanham Act (US Federal trademark
law) claim unless one can demonstrate (in the words of 15 USC 1114
1(a)) that the use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake,
or to deceive. In the case of a famous mark, though, trademark
dilution or injury to business
On 10 Jan 2005 00:55:53 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Much documentation is derived mainly from the comments in the code.
In a few cases, there are actually comments in the code which are
written deliberately to serve as the basis for documentation. Does
the above argument about lacking
Thanks, Batist; it's good to hear how this works in a civil law
system. I didn't think it likely that licenses came in a non-contract
form there either. Judging from your comments and from
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/belgium/page1.html , it
sounds like copyright licenses are
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding [PMX:VIRUS] Re: will not be received.
Nick Phillips wrote:
After all, the same kind of thing is fine for TeX, LaTeX, Apache
What are the exact restriction we have to follow when distributing apache? Where
is this documented? Are those restrictions attached to the copyright file?
Cheers,
Alex
--
GPG messages
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because
DISregard for a moment that IRAF seems to include code from a nonfree
yacc.
IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
available under the GPL. Is that allowed, even though IRAF is not
GPL? IRAF is not a
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
available under the GPL. Is that allowed, even though IRAF is not
GPL? IRAF is not a
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
available under the GPL. Is
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libncar-graphics
Version : 4.4.0 and counting, quickly
Upstream Author : UCAR, C/O Mary Haley
* URL : http://ngwww.ucar.edu/ng/
* License : GPL2
Description : scientific visualization suite from UCAR
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:51:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You also need to turn this question around and ask it the other way:
does having these drivers in contrib actually hurt anything?
Yes. It currently means that we can't ship an installer with support
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR
1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes
mostly-minor differences (some bugfixes, I think, and some changes
that the IRAF group made). I
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
available under the GPL. Is
I wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:51:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You also need to turn this question around and ask it the other way:
does having these drivers in contrib actually hurt anything?
Yes. It currently means that we can't ship an installer with
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 12:42:57 -0500, Justin Pryzby escribía:
What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction
not present in the GPL.
Interpretation: when you join (by linking) a GPLed work with
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I grow tired of your endless habit of redefining every term in sight
until it fits your whim, usually in defiance of your previous claims,
reality, or just plain logic. This is a waste of my time. Go away.
If anyone else on debian-legal agrees with
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:25:11PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR
1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes
mostly-minor differences (some
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:42:57PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
You can always link GPL material with non-GPL material, so long as that
other work is GPL-compatible.
What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
A license is GPL-compatible if it can be converted to the GPL. In
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright
Get a legal college degree Instantly:
Here's the ultimate solution for anybody who needs to get a degree instantly
with no
attendance requirements or hassle of any kind. Get recognition for your
experience. Give us
a call @ 1.206.666.6485
narrate initiate torture actinium pixel acadia
MJ Ray wrote:
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
Is Debian's trademark policy freedom-restricting? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
The fact that we have conveniently
ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far
does not make it go away.
It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in
/usr/share/common-licenses/ because
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
^^
I don't see where the GPL permits me to sublicense...
That implies a contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
have a different view.
So why this package is in
Hi everybody!
I recently package and uploaded openclipart [1], an open clipart
library. The package has just been accepted by the ftpmasters and is now
in Debian.
I just received a bug report (#289764) from William Ballard about
problematic copyrighted pictures, that looks like similar to some
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:26:55PM +0100, Bjoern wrote:
i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
have a different view.
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I should admit that I don't know anything about such copyright law,
however I think that as long it is just a drawing without any
copyrighted logo, it's not a problem.
A quick look over these pictures suggests no *copyright* problems.
They look like
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:41:16 +0100, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
^^
I
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I should admit that I don't know anything about such copyright law,
however I think that as long it is just a drawing without any
copyrighted logo, it's not a problem.
A
[I'll not Cc: you Aurelian, as I assume you'll get this from the BTS
anyway. Others: If you stop Cc:'ing the bug, you'll probably need to
Cc: the maintainer.]
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
I recently package and uploaded openclipart [1], an open clipart
library. The package has
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
There may be trademark problems. For example, Duracell may have a
consider the orange-and-black battery to be trade dress; my
understanding of trademark law is quite limited, but I don't think it
applies to pictures of the
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:59:38AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
can go there. For Rubik it is a little more difficult to find another
work, and I am almost sure this word is used somewhere in Debian.
After a quick look on google, it seems that Rubik is not a registred
trademark, but Rubik's Cube
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:16:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
[I'll not Cc: you Aurelian, as I assume you'll get this from the BTS
anyway. Others: If you stop Cc:'ing the bug, you'll probably need to
Cc: the maintainer.]
I am subscribed to the list, so don't need to Cc: me. For the BTS, if
the
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:16:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
However, it's quite possible that they are representations of
trademarks, and as such protected wherever such a company has
trademarks. [I don't deign to know who actually controlls these
trademarks, or even if they are really
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:16:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Almost none of these images appear to actually be affected by whomever
William claims to own the copyright, unless they are actually
derivative works of something that is copyrighted.[1]
However, it's quite possible that they are
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:36:34AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Considering all of that, I think the hummer files could be a problem as
the filename states that the artist wanted to draw a hummer car. As
HUMMER is a registered trademark of General Motors Corporation, it may
be a problem.
It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 (
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
by the upstream don't get downrated. But in my
tags 287090 +pending
Thanks Mate :)
Branden Robinson wrote:
Package: kaquarium
Version: 1.0-beta-3
Severity: serious
Justification: violation of Debian Policy 2.2.1
As noted on debian-legal on 20 August by Nathanael Nerode, kaquarium
appears to contain non-DFSG-free images files (some of
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:56:37AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:13:21PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
It's pretty clear what the intent was -- those are intended to
represents specific brands. I have no idea if that's permitted or not.
Of course it's allowed,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:26:50PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The DFSG has a specific permission for authors to require name
changes. That's all Mozilla is doing here: requiring a change of name
for their software.
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:32:32AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
This problem has been resolved by discussion with the copyright owner of
the image files in question. The website that the images were
originally distributed from [1] now has a license statement for the
windows screensaver
Following up to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I fell off thread
Found this link:
http://www.crowleylaw.com/IPNews/IP018.htm
[quote]
The same lack of similarity was fatal to Stouffer?s claim for copyright
infringement of the cover illustration for her booklet, Larry
This bit concerns what CafePress will and will not accept:
Examples of Prohibited Content
Because of intellectual property laws, CafePress.com has certain rules
regarding the types of merchandise that you can make and sell through
its service. For example:
* NO UNOFFICIAL MERCHANDISE
*
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:08:09PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
It clearly states that some elements of an illustration are
protectable. A young boy with dark hair and eyeglasses is
not protectable, but a young boy with eyeglasses, similar facial
featurs, style and color of hair *clearly
Generally, one can't succeed on a Lanham Act (US Federal trademark
law) claim unless one can demonstrate (in the words of 15 USC 1114
1(a)) that the use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake,
or to deceive. In the case of a famous mark, though, trademark
dilution or injury to business
On 10 Jan 2005 00:55:53 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Much documentation is derived mainly from the comments in the code.
In a few cases, there are actually comments in the code which are
written deliberately to serve as the basis for documentation. Does
the above argument about lacking
Thanks, Batist; it's good to hear how this works in a civil law
system. I didn't think it likely that licenses came in a non-contract
form there either. Judging from your comments and from
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/belgium/page1.html , it
sounds like copyright licenses are
It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 (
69 matches
Mail list logo
