Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images
provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark.
I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report.
Thanks to everybody who help me to understand the problem.
--
.''`.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
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
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
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
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer.
I don't think it's right to distribute other people's
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell,
William Ballard writes:
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer.
I don't think it's
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell,
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco,
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
Context is everything.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm
There's one now. It's perfectly
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
allows us to do the same
* Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050111 11:45]:
It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in
/usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to
*accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going
beyond and requiring that the
William Ballard writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
I dare you to package the golden arches
William Ballard writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of
understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even
remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:54:54 +0100, Batist Paklons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:03:44 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me clarify. :-)
Let me muddify. :-)
I have few complaints with the treatment of material for which the authors
*claim* copyright.
Come to think of it, the copper top is a fun example; think of the
use of the phrase in The Matrix. Also common slang for a redheaded
person in parts of the US. There's an argument that copper and
black helps get across the battery meaning of a tiny icon. Is
Duracell in danger of losing control
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding [PMX:VIRUS] Re: will not be received.
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:53:52 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio 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.
In my latest message I didn't really say what I really meant,
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license
under the GPL is
Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images
provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark.
I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report.
Thanks to everybody who help me to understand the problem.
--
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
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
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called Mozilla
Firefox and are claiming Firefox as an extra name.
Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is Debian's trademark policy freedom-restricting? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
of free software.
I
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
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
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:46:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called Mozilla
Firefox and are claiming Firefox
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
Quoting Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of
the new OASIS[1] IPR draft. I tried to
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:51:32 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen escribía:
I wouldn't be horribly surprised if the names hummer or rubik are
Is HMMV a registered trademark?
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer.
I don't think it's right to distribute other people's
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:03:39AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images
provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark.
I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
William Ballard writes:
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer.
I don't think it's
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell,
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco,
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
Context is everything.
- David Nusinow
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm
There's one now. It's perfectly
William Ballard writes:
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
Without knowing context and intent, we cannot answer; since you have
not related that to Debian, I do not wish to go into
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
allows us to do the same
* Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050111 11:45]:
It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in
/usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to
*accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going
beyond and requiring that the
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art
were nearby.
Kind
William Ballard writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:36:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
Removal of the pacman image is the
only one that I can see any case for at all
Even if this were once true (which I doubt), there's no chance that
anybody still has a valid trademark on pacman; it's diluted to the
point of being
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart.
Or Mr. Peanut.
You've got the
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:38:34PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart.
Or Mr. Peanut.
What good would that accomplish?
[I'm hoping you can give me a meaningful answer.]
Also, is there some reason to represent a Mr. Peanut instead of just
a regular
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
I dare you to package the golden arches
I hope the thread will just die soon, we're going round and round.
CC me on replies so I don't have to start new thread.
Regarding:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00359.html
Raul said:
As an aside, if you want to get some company's logo, usually a google
image search of the
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I say in kindness and not hostility: put your money where your mouth
is. Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I say in kindness and not hostility: put your money where your mouth
is. Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the
terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need
to now (eg
William Ballard writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of
understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even
remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in
54 matches
Mail list logo
