Christian Grothoff transcribed 34K bytes:
> Dear all,
> <management>
> I think this is the time where I have to disclose a major unfortunate
> development (but which may be resolved soon without too much drama).
> Basically, GNUnet e.V. has received a cease and desist letter from
> Deutsche Telekom AG (DTAG) over the use of the letter "T" in the logo on
>  Now, the logo was created by Inria, and Inria hosts the Web
> site (and Inria and Taler Systems SA are threatened separately by DTAG)
> so basically our position (GNUnet e.V. Vorstand) is that we are not
> responsible for the "T" (and Inria has since then changed the logo).

Wow, just wow! It's not like someone would've confused the old logo
and what's there now. It's not even telekom-pink. Frustrating how
companies can have power over use of one letter.

> Regardless, this unpleasentness should serve as a stark reminder that
> under current law corporations can OWN letters, and if the letter "T"
> (or "t", in any font or color, in any logo that may possibly resemble
> two lines crossing at an angle) is asserted by DTAG to be their
> property, there is a chance that any logo resembling a "V" may be
> asserted to be owned by another billion-dollar company and *we* cannot
> finance a 500k decade-long lawsuit to demonstrate the contrary.
> Thus, I think that choosing a logo that may remotely resemble a letter
> is dangerous in today's world, and while the proposed logo is nice, it
> is too close to a "V" (and one of the more extreme legal advice we got
> over the "T" was that even _possibly_ violating an existing trademark
> without legal advice from a lawyer would be negligent and could cause
> GNUnet's Vorstand to be held personally liable for financial damages to
> tens of thousands of Euros just for the other party's legal costs).  Not
> fun. So let's be VERY careful about the new logo...

Couldn't we apply for trademark of the name GNUnet to be on the safe
side? That would just be Switzerland or Germany, depending on who applies.
It's not a good solution, but who knows what some random company is
daydreaming of...

> </management>
> <sarcasm>
> I read reports that DTAG also applied for a trademark on the term
> "internet". So at least there we are safe.
> </sacrasm>
> More below...
> On 05/17/2018 04:07 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> >> A very good reference for all of this is this website: 
> >>
> >> The only problem with that is that it's kind of like a visiting card.
> >> Another reference, which is good, is this website:
> >> Additionally, what the second website makes better than the first 
> >> reference, is that it's not just a visiting card. It strongly interacts 
> >> with the audience. It gives impulse to click on videos, zoom into maps 
> >> dynamically displaying what's going on in the free wireless network that 
> >> this project Freifunk is all about.
> > 
> > Agreed. I am not sure, but isn't there a redesign in the works? Who does 
> > it? And is there progress or is it done behind closed doors? (Just asking)
> Not at all, the Git repository for the main page (under development) is
> at
> Now, the plan is that some parts will be generated, like the texinfo
> handbook in gnunet.git will be HTMLized and put online in the usual way,

- where we agreed (I think?) for deploying them on with some
  I'd like to have documentation of more than just gnunet on there (gnunet-gtk,
  gnunet-python, etc etc).

> and the IRC bots (will/are being?) rewritten to avoid the Drupal-ness.

 - the plan here was to use what powers, at least Devan porposed

> Similarly, the goal is to convert the existing bibiography data to
> anonbib-style.  I don't know where the repos for those are (ng0 ought
> to), but they should be opened to all as soon as there is something there.

-, which is progressing with extreme
  slowness (as is my work on anonbib itself), contributors *really* welcome
  and more than just wanted! basically you try to build the bib and see it 
  track down the right link. enter data of gnunet, or something like that.
  It's been too long since I've looked at it. It's mostly selfexplanatory, but
  if you are in doubt, ask on this list.

> > I am not entirely sold on the values thing in general but I would be open 
> > to discuss this. I am particularly afraid that ill defined values or 
> > "virtues" will attract all kinds of indoctrinated bigots. We should 
> > primarily offer a tool built on principles, not a biased or political 
> > worldview (although I know particularly CG might disagree).
> I agree we need to be careful here.  But I also think GNU is a political
> project, and the principles should be derived from
> ethical/moral/political convictions.  I recently added this to the
> preface of the manual:
> """
> GNUnet is not merely a technical project, but also a political
> mission: like the GNU project as a whole, we are writing software to
> achieve political goals with a focus on the human right of
> informational self-determination.  Putting users in control of their
> computing has been the core driver of the GNU project. With GNUnet we
> are focusing on informational self-determination for collaborative
> computing and communication over networks.
> The Internet is shaped as much by code and protocols as by its
> associated political processes (IETF, ICANN, IEEE, etc.), and its
> flaws are similarly not limited to the protocol design.  Thus,
> technical excellence by itself will not suffice to create a better
> network. We also need to build a community that is wise, humble and
> has a sense of humor to achieve our goal to create a technical
> foundation for a society we would like to live in.
> """
> Martin, is this something you would disagree with?  There are various
> discussions within the GNU project about the need for humor, including
> it utility against tyranny and authoritarianism, and if you have
> relevant remarks on this topic I might feed them into the discussion.
> > I am actually not sure if GNUnet has a clear value definition.
> GNU has IMO clear values, and those are what we aspire to. More shall
> not be required, less is not acceptable. But of course GNU's values have
> maybe more specific articulations in a networking context, which might
> be need to be made explicit in that context. ;-).
> >> But then at least additionally some technical key features, bullet points, 
> >> should be dropped: Things like 'distributed', 'anonymous P2P', 
> >> 'Filesharing', 'creating a anonymous and distributed replacement for the 
> >> old insecure Internet' - it's just something early adopters expect to be 
> >> faced with, are looking for, and get very attentive and attracted to.
> >> It's okay, if these drops are pretty bold and ambitious, because they make 
> >> clear what the project strives for to be or become, and that attracts 
> >> people who want the same, building up momentum into the desired direction 
> >> of the project.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > Nice post.
> If you look at the new design (very rough early draft) at
> I think it addresses your points already (maybe imperfectly, but as I
> said: early draft).
> One major benefit of the new site will be that it should be easier for
> anyone to suggest (or even make) modifications via Git, and you are all
> welcome to participate in this process today (now that you can hopefully
> all find the 'www.git' ;-)).
> Happy hacking!
> Christian

pub   RSA 4096/E29FC3CC 2014-12-09 Christian Grothoff 
> sub   RSA 4096/117E1AFB 2014-12-09

> _______________________________________________
> GNUnet-developers mailing list

GNUnet-developers mailing list

Reply via email to