On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Brandon Lozza wrote:
I think an exception should be made for Chromium too.
No. Just no.
The exceptions for Firefox need to stop NOW, i.e. no new ones should be
granted and the ones that have already been granted
Tomas Mraz wrote:
The problem here really is that some not so important? projects are
forced to accept all the restrictions and requirements and other more
important? projects get a free pass from them. This is unfortunate and
it does not improve the spirit of the package maintainers.
Yes,
Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
I don't see any conflict between Fedora's policy and Mozilla's policy.
Both say that if you redistribute and change code you have to
re-trademark. Those policies are fair and sensible. We can either
patch and re-trademark Firefox or ship upstream. One of the values
Brandon Lozza wrote:
I think an exception should be made for Chromium too.
No. Just no.
The exceptions for Firefox need to stop NOW, i.e. no new ones should be
granted and the ones that have already been granted repealed/discontinued.
Giving yet another package a free pass is going in the
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at
Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply
do not fit into this philosophy.
If we don't
I think an exception should be made for Chromium too. Having a more
secure browser would benefit the main repositories.
On 10/7/10, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
However,
On 10/07/2010 08:36 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamsonawill...@redhat.com wrote:
If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce anything
and call it 'Fedora'. Including something which doesn't fit into our
philosophy of freedom at all.
What are you guys
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:36 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
What are you guys going to do if someone does it anyway in a country
where Redhat hasn't registered the Fedora trademark, or countries
where another country already owns the Fedora trademark. Do you think
spammers are going to host in
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
somebody else brand recognition.
I disagree - trademarks exist to protect the manufacturer from
loosing profits because
On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
somebody else brand recognition.
I disagree - trademarks exist to protect the
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
somebody else
On 10/06/2010 10:41 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
somebody else brand recognition.
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at
Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply
do not fit into this philosophy.
If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:59:08 -0400,
Nathaniel McCallum nathan...@natemccallum.com wrote:
I have an idea... I'm going to create a fork of Fedora. I'm going to
fill it full of proprietary shit. I'm going to find the buggiest closed
drivers I can find and load them into the kernel. I'll
On 10/06/2010 12:12 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:59:08 -0400,
Nathaniel McCallum nathan...@natemccallum.com wrote:
I have an idea... I'm going to create a fork of Fedora. I'm going to
fill it full of proprietary shit. I'm going to find the buggiest closed
drivers
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:29:59 -0400,
Nathaniel McCallum nathan...@natemccallum.com wrote:
The only possible room for debate that I see is that there is, in
Firefox, a potential conflict between our ship upstream and don't
bundle libs values. We have FESco to sort that out.
Those are
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said:
Some have
also hoped that Mozilla would change with regard to bundled libraries in the
near future, but that seems pretty unlikely.
I think that's an unfair statement; from what I understand, Firefox has
already unbundled some libraries,
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:25:27 -0500,
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said:
Some have
also hoped that Mozilla would change with regard to bundled libraries in the
near future, but that seems pretty unlikely.
I think that's an
Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com writes:
It's really pretty simple: we can only define goals and values and
blahblah for 'the Fedora project' as long as we actually retain control
over 'the Fedora project' (that's we as in the Fedora community, not Red
Hat, BTW) and we can only do that
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
Of course. But there's in fact no disagreement, only looking at
different aspects of the same thing.
Why do you think the copying takes place? Because the companies have
built a good reputation and brand,
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:00:50PM +1000, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 10/07/2010 12:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
But I agree that having a strict requirement because it's felt that the
issues that are raised by allowing the requirement to be violated are very
problematic for us as a distro but
21 matches
Mail list logo
