Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Eric Dorland | BTW, any Ubuntu developers care to comment? I'm interested in second | opinions and how you guys are handling this situation? Did you accept | an arrangement with MoFo? We've been in touch with them and have currently renamed the mozilla-firefox package to firefox. The same thing is going to happen to mozilla-thunderbird once I get around to it. We are unsure about the downstream namechange requirement, but not having firefox in there would be bad. So, a bit undecided at the moment. I wonder if we (as in Debian) could get the Mozilla Foundation to agree that in addition to the terms provided earlier in this thread our downstreams get an automatic trademark licence (a Community Edition Licence) which can be revoked if they misrepresent or misbehave. Given that the Mozilla Foundation are fairly happy with the quality we are providing and most downstreams would inherit that quality this could be acceptable to them. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)
Hi!
Wouter Verhelst [2005-06-15 1:29 +0200]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /usr/bin/awk
rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 21 2005-03-28 10:49 /usr/bin/awk -
/etc/alternatives/awk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /etc/alternatives/awk
rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 13 2005-03-28 13:22 /etc/alternatives/awk -
/usr/bin/gawk
In other words, alternatives are *never* directly read from
/etc/alternatives; they are read from, e.g., /usr/bin/awk.
If you have a symlink /var/log/app.log - /etc/app/log, then you're
fine. If your app is writing directly to /etc/app/log, you're not.
Why? Because otherwise your application tries to open a file which it
can lstat but not stat if whatever the symlink tries to write to is not
available for some reason (e.g., the file system is b0rked or not
mounted).
That doesn't happen, pg_ctlcluster supplies the real log file location
to the postmaster:
sub cluster_info {
my %result;
$result{'configdir'} = $confroot/$_[0]/$_[1];
[...]
$result{'logfile'} = readlink ($result{'configdir'} . /log);
[...]
}
As I said, I only regard the symlink target as configuration value, I
don't actually pretend that the actual log file is in /etc.
Martin
--
Martin Pitthttp://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian? What about Galeon and the others Gecko-based browsers ? Non issue. Nearly all organizations care about internal standards. If the organization policy for web browsers is Firefox, every environment for which Firefox is not part of is out of the organization standard. This is how IT is handled in professionnal environments, like it or not. In short, as ONERA's policy will soon be that Firefox is the company's standard, I may be forced to drop off Debian as the official recommendation *I* am responsible for Linux systems if Debian drops Firefox out because of some license/trademark/whatever_you_call_it issues. And, no, we won't switch to Galeon. Not unless there is a Windows port (yes, I live in the real world, where MS-Windows exists and will exist for a long time). So, please, people who enjoy swimming in the nasty pool of licenses and legal stuff, don't make me just ban Debian of my own company. Or make me maintain unofficial firefox packages which will of course be of lower quality than those from the firefox package maintainers in Debian. (for most people around who are unaware of it and for more clarity, ONERA is the French Aerospace research center, where I'm responsible for desktop systems architectures) This is probably my first and last comment about this issue. I *hate* legal discussions, licenses nitpicking and haircutting. I understand that some people enjoy this and I even understand we need some people to do so. But I feel there are enough *real* issues and we probably should not begin to invent new ones..:-) I know this mail will sound a bit rude but some parts of this thread really made me nervous. (taking pills now..:-))) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050614 23:41]: I do not believe that this makes it non-free, but I encourage the ftpmasters to investigate if our infrastructure can support such a license. [...] Anyway, this particular case would put an unacceptable burden on our mirror network. If it was so difficult to add amd64, you can't ask them to mirror snapshot.debian.net. BTW; if we make snapshot.debian.net a .org service, we're shipping sources yet. You have to distribute it, you don't need to mirror it all around the world. Note that any such infrastructure things would only allow us to distribute them, but not change our rules that such a thing cannot be in Debian main. If there are such problems, more infrastructure can only allow them put in the non-free section. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
I didn't see anyone proposing prelinking so far. I've seen rumors that program start time for some programs decrease a lot if prelinking is enabled. It would be nice if we could speed up the login time, or for example the openoffice start time. Is prelinking the way to go? Should it be enabled by default? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading to Debian sarge
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 08:59:16AM +1000, Brian May wrote: Hello, I am attempting to upgrade a powerpc based system to sarge. It was previously on testing, but hasn't been updated for months. Then again, maybe the entire archive *is* corrupt! Failed to fetch http://mirror.pacific.net.au/debian/pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dev_2.3.2.ds1-22_powerpc.deb MD5Sum mismatch Failed to fetch http://mirror.pacific.net.au/debian/pool/main/g/glibc/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-22_powerpc.deb MD5Sum mismatch I vaugely remember dropping mirror.pacific.net.au from my list of sources after having the same problem with MD5Sum mismatches. So I think it may have existed for a while? (It was also a testing machine... Maybe only one part of the archive got corrupted somehow? I never tested the .debs themselves though. ^_^) -- --- Paul TBBle Hampson, MCSE 8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder? -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. --- pgpsMevuDUCJP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
El Miércoles 15 Junio 2005 03:00, Eric Dorland escribió: * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the priorities of our users and free software... And where do we strike that balance in this case? I think gaining more freedom for our users is the best thing in the long run. Sure, there will be shorter term pain, but we need to take the long view. There would be a long term pain if we change, not short term. Because we will be always receiving new users from *the rest of the world* where Firefox is called... Firefox. (I hope we will be always receiving new users... otherwise it means that we are dead...). And now answering straight to your original question: Yes, I think we can accept the Mozilla offer. It has been told before. Trademarks are not code. DSFG #4 supports this. If someone wants to redistribute Debian, they should check about trademarks and patents issues. This has nothing to do with the freedom of the code. What happens if tomorrow I start redistributing a modifyed Debian version (only bugfixes; of course, I will decide what bugs are for me...) and I call it Debian GNU/Linux Sarge 3.1? Will I have a trademark issue with SPI? Ohh, we can't accept this for Firefox but we can accept it for Debian itself... very nice. Regards, César
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Their* trademark policy. Maybe the emphasis should have been there in the first place. Do you know the history of the Adamantix project? Yes. It's a Debian derivative which was called 'TrustedDebian' at first. I 'vaguely' recall something about the DPL requesting they change their name... How is this different? The name TrustedSomething implies that the Something in question isn't secure. That's what got told to them, and they were asked to change their name. It's all in the -project archives. Very different from the Mozilla situation. JB. -- Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Debian, because code matters more Debian GNU/Linux Developer| http://www.debian.org Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about Galeon and the others Gecko-based browsers ? Non issue. Nearly all organizations care about internal standards. If the organization policy for web browsers is Firefox, every environment for which Firefox is not part of is out of the organization standard. Non issue. Want firefox ? Really ? Grab the binaries from mozilla.org. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:31:45AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: I didn't see anyone proposing prelinking so far. I've seen rumors that program start time for some programs decrease a lot if prelinking is enabled. It would be nice if we could speed up the login time, or for example the openoffice start time. Is prelinking the way to go? Should it be enabled by default? Using prelink invalidates the md5sums of files belonging to Debian packages. Has anyone done any work to address this? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:12:09AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: So, without further delay, here's my Etch-wishlist, it's biased on some of the things I've personally worked on and would like to keep working on for etch. I would love to hear the Release Managers opinion on what they believe should be Release Goals for etch besides the things we all already know about (non-free documentation purged from main, changes in supported architectures...) Feel free to add some new items or add (hopefully new) information to the ones I list below: Ok, sure. Here are a few one-liners about various things I'm aware of that one person or another wants to see happen in the etch timeframe, together with the name of the person who has claimed responsibility: Toolchain update to gcc/g++ 4.0 - Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Switch to dependency-based init.d handling -- Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drop libpng2/libpng10-0/libpng3 packages - Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drop libmysqlclient10/libmysqlclient12 packages - Adam Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Consistent LFS support - Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bend all library packages to my will - Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] You seem to have a rather long wishlist of your own; are these all things that you personally plan to work on during the etch cycle? If so, kudos! If not, which ones are you expecting to spend your time on, and which are you looking for help with? Hi Steve, I was thinking of Bridge, at least the little I know about the game, where you guess how many tricks(in this case tasks) you can get in the game -- a contract I think. Would it be cruel to make some such page of 'contracts' updated by each DD and have someone update the list of completed tasks monthly. Since volunteers in Debian work on what floats their boat, I'd be curious to see by release's end, who has lived up to their own expectations of their contract. Any one for betting? Would having a public airing of one's own goals be motivating or not? just feeling in a devilish mood ;-) Cheers, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ ' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P $ $$ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$ `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: As I understand DSFG 8, this covers only the case that the firefox package distributed by Debian *as is* must still be usable legally when used outside Debian. Come on, that can't possibly be the intention. I could craft a license that says you have all the rights of the BSD license, as long as your code is exactly the same as it is in Debian. That would be insane. Yes, but it's not relevant to the case at hand. Why is it irrelevant? In the firefox case, people say You have all the rights of the license; and as long as it's in Debian or it's not modified, you may call it firefox. Exactly. How is that permissible under DFSG #8. Your example isn't even close to that. The first sentence goes The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system.. Clearly if we accepted the MoFo proposal, the program would have more rights within Debian than without, and wouldn't be compatible with DFSG #8. First, a program doesn't have any right. People do. Yes, my phrasing was slightly off. It should say... the program would have more rights attached to it within Debian than without. I think the meaning was still clear. Second, this trademark business has nothing to do with the program's license. Trademarks licenses and software licenses are two entirely distinct beasts, and you shouldn't even attempt to mix them. I don't recall saying or implying they were the same thing. The DFSG talks about software licenses. It does not talk about patents (which is a problem), and it does not talk about trademarks either (which I don't think is a problem, but I don't know whether other people feel the same way). A trademark license simply /is not an issue/ with regards to Free Software; whether you're allowed to use a trademark or not has no impact on whether or not you're allowed to modify, study, or redistribute the software. As such, it cannot make the license non-free. Just because the DFSG was developed only within the context of software licenses, it doesn't mean their principles don't apply to other things. Let's construct an analogy using patents. Company X releases foowhizbang under a BSD license. But contained within foowhizbang is their patented algorithm, which they're actively enforcing against anyone who distributes their own complied binaries. Except they've granted the Debian project an exception. Would we distribute this software? Even though we're not discussing a software license, I think the principles behind the DFSG would mean we would not distribute this software. I hope the parallels I'm drawing are clear. Now, I haven't claimed Firefox's trademark makes it non-free. My question is whether I can use the trademark in Debian. If I look at the Mozilla Trademark Policy, I cannot. Now MoFo has agreed to extend us permission to use the mark. I don't think we should accept that permission. We shouldn't be making deals purely in our own self interest. That's what DFSG #8 is all about. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: C++ ABI change -- freezing unstable for new C++ library packages
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:17:59AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 14:48 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : I maintain a package (hdf5) which contains a pure C library and a C++ interface. However, I'm pretty sure the C++ library isn't used by packages depending on it. In this case, is it necessary for the library to be renamed? If the C++ library is exposed in the package's shlibs, yes... Alright, I'll do that. Furthermore, this package has a long history of triggering weird compiler errors, including several ICEs. Is there a way to test the build with g++-4.0 on all architectures before the transition starts? (Other than asking eleven porters to check if it builds...) Upload a package to experimental that build-depends on g++-4.0 and invokes it in debian/rules? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Jun 15, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the priorities of our users and free software... And where do we strike that balance in this case? I think gaining more freedom for our users is the best thing in the long run. Sure, there will be shorter term pain, but we need to take the long view. I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal trademarks. If a trademark license allows us to ship the software the way we want and there are no practical problems in removing trademark references if it were ever needed then I think it's obvious that we would do a disservice to our users by removing from Debian such a widely know trademark without a good reason. Well the whole issue is I don't believe we're allowed to ship the software the way we want. We would be compromising our principles by doing so. There are good reasons for a trademark license to be restrictive and I believe that the MF made a good case about their one, so I do not think that it's important for users to have the permission to use it however they want. The code is still free no matter how it is branded so this is not an issue of software freedom, at best this is a marketing issue. I never asked them to give users permission to use it however they want. But their current permissions are too restrictive. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:57:27 -0500, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, we're not all *that* militant. we still have non-free. And non-free gets stronger with every package that gets moved there. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Alexander Sack wrote: Sadly, a good example that this is true to some extent, is that the MF apparently has no high priority to care about distributors, when it comes to security issues. AFAIK, we cannot get access to confidential security reports in order to prepare a fix in a timely manner. That's simply not true. Anyone distributing significant copies of Firefox can have a representative on the security group, which has access to all the confidential bugs. Just ask Dan Veditz [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In fact, Debian already has someone (Matt Zimmerman) on the list. The current list of members is here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/secgrouplist.html As you can see, it contains representatives of Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE and Debian. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Gervase Markham wrote: That's simply not true. Anyone distributing significant copies of Firefox can have a representative on the security group, which has access to all the confidential bugs. Just ask Dan Veditz [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In fact, Debian already has someone (Matt Zimmerman) on the list. Ah ... thanks for the info. Nevertheless, I think debian has to reconsider if Matt is still the right person to fill that position, but that is of course not your job. Cheers, -- GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Alexander Sack| : :' : The universal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `' Operating System http://www.asoftsite.org | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal trademarks. If a trademark license allows us to ship the software the way we want and there are no practical problems in removing trademark references if it were ever needed then I think it's obvious that we would do a disservice to our users by removing from Debian such a widely know trademark without a good reason. Well the whole issue is I don't believe we're allowed to ship the software the way we want. We would be compromising our principles by doing so. Sorry, I think I must have missed something here. Why are you bothering to ask -devel when you've clearly already decided upon your position? Like others in this thread I disagree with your position. I don't think you'd be compromising Debian's principles in doing this as it's just about the name and it's purported to be easy to change the name if downstream users do patch it. If people want to rip out the guts of firefox then they have to rename it. I see no problem here. Debian has proved it only wants to do nice, fluffy things to firefox, Gervase is being accomodating as far as I can tell. Why do you want to make Debian the distribution that users moan about shipping iceweasel when there is no reason not to just ship firefox? Pragmatically yours, Simon. -- UK based domain, email and web hosting ***/ I got everything up to the /* http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ **/ part about `Now listen /** [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ closely' - The Cat. /*** Black Cat Networks / / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:06:51PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote: Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal. Sorry John, but this is BS. The text of the GPL#6 says: You may not impose *any* further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. This *does* include trademark restrictions. That's simply not true. Copyright law has nothing to do with trademark law. It is perfectly reasonable of the Mozilla Foundation to request that people don't start calling everything and their mother firefox, even if it was based on the original FireFox code. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 06:51:51PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: Cesar Martinez Izquierdo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, in this paragraph you are basically stating that we *should* rename firefox to save them from such burden. No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save our *direct* users from such burden. A lot of people would get greatly confused with a different name for Firefox, even if you don't think so. *Indirect* users such as derived distributions should check the licenses and other trademark or patent issues before start distributing anything. It's their task to check it. We can help them if we create Debian packages which are easy to rename, but we shouldn't confuse the rest of the users just to make this task easier to derived distributions. With this reasoning, firefox must go to non-free -- because everything in main is guaranteed to be freely distributable by anyone, anywhere. Doesn't follow. Everything in main is guaranteed to be freely distributable. Everything in main is guaranteed to be freely modifiable. A combination of the two is also guaranteed. However, that doesn't mean you don't have to check the license. For instance, some software requires you to provide source and/or a change log of your changes; other software does not. You will have to check this when you modify the software anyway; trade marks are no different. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:11PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: People seem to be using DFSG 4 as a justification for keeping the name, but I believe that is flawed. DFSG 4 allows for a license to say if you meet conditions X, you can use our name, otherwise you can't. So the TeX guys have a test suite and specifications that you have to pass to call the software TeX. What if the license said You can call the program TeX if it's part of Debian. Would we still call it TeX? That's not what the Mozilla Foundation is doing. They're saying you can call it firefox if you adhere to our standards, and we will determine whether you do. Next, they have determined that Debian is adhering to their standards, so they allow us to call it firefox. Anyone who gets firefox from Debian has the same rights under the trademark license: either they ask the Mozilla Foundation whether they adhere to their standards, or they rename the thing. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: Does the opposite make it worse? I think so. IMHO it makes no difference at all. The normal, regular, I-dont-read-debian-mailing-lists folk install the Gnome Desktop or the KDE Desktop tasks, see the Web Browser icon, double-click it and voila. As long as it works (and as long as they can install the Macromedia plugins), they don't care. The rest of the world knows Debian renamed Firefox as Iceweasel to escape Mozilla Foundation's arcane trademark license. I don't think it's arcane. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, which Debian itself has done in the past (TrustedDebian - Adamantix) You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you either rename it to something else or get permission to call it firefox. Doesn't sound non-free to me. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:35:10AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: As I said, I only regard the symlink target as configuration value, I don't actually pretend that the actual log file is in /etc. Okay, good; it's just that someone seemed to imply that this was not the case. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:50:59PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: I think keeping the name does hurt Debian. Keeping the name means we cut a Debian specific deal. That doesn't sit well with me. I don't want to get special treatment just because we're popular. We don't get a special treatment just because we're popular. We get this treatment because upstream thinks we're doing a good job (which is great), and it seems likely that other people who do a similarly good job will get the same treatment. So it isn't even a special treatment. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:54:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: Firefox is free software, and DFSG-compliant: The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (Even if it is a compromise). But is non-rebranded Firefox *really* distributable by us under GPL#6, no further restrictions? Yes. Trademarks have nothing to do with copyright. You can be sued for infringing a trademark and will not be at risk of losing your rights to use the software under the terms of the GPL. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:35:12PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we accept such a deal as a project? Does the DFSG allow us to? Again: yes, the DFSG allows us to, because the DFSG doesn't talk about trademarks. The DFSG talks about software licenses, which are not even remotely the same thing as trademark licenses. There is nothing wrong with a trademark policy which requires you to rename or get permission. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:47:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote: Yes, it's not nice, it's crap, but it's still entirely possible within the (pseudo-)legal framewark Debian gives itself. Isn't Debian point to be less crap? Yeah, I even agree it's possible within Debian's laws, Then what's the problem? but should it be done? I don't think so. Why not? You have to understand that we can't creat policies based on the gut feeling of random people who think we should not do something. If you agree it's possible within Debian (which is the case), and it helps our users (which is also the case), then it should be done. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:09:49AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:31:45AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: I didn't see anyone proposing prelinking so far. I've seen rumors that program start time for some programs decrease a lot if prelinking is enabled. It would be nice if we could speed up the login time, or for example the openoffice start time. Is prelinking the way to go? Should it be enabled by default? Using prelink invalidates the md5sums of files belonging to Debian packages. Has anyone done any work to address this? The only way to address that is to update the md5sum after prelinking is done. However, doing that is rather problematic, as it would either require a check of the md5sum before the prelinking phase, or result in a binary where the md5sum isn't useful anymore (it might have been compromised in the time between the installation of the package and the last update of the md5sum). -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On 15/06/2005 Julien BLACHE wrote: It's a Debian derivative which was called 'TrustedDebian' at first. I 'vaguely' recall something about the DPL requesting they change their name... How is this different? The name TrustedSomething implies that the Something in question isn't secure. That's what got told to them, and they were asked to change their name. It's all in the -project archives. Very different from the Mozilla situation. all we can discuss are principles, not particular situations. if we decide how to behave in every particular situation, we will have very inconsistent licences, copyrights, whatsoever in the archive. the problem is whether the situation is acceptable under the terms of the DFSG, not whether some particualar debian developer X has objections against it. nevertheless there in no obvious solution. on the one hand we allow licenses to restrict the use of a name, see DFSG#4, on the other hand we say that licenses may not be specific to debian. DFSG#8 says, that the license which applies to the debian package has to be the same as for users and redistributors. i guess, the only way to not compromise one of the two DFSG paragraphs is to rename firefox packages. i really don't like that idea, and maybe the MoFo can be convinced to change their license. maybe section 4 and 8 of the DFSG are predestinated to cause conflicts. we could add an exception to section 8, that trademark or logo licenses for debian and users/redistributors may differ [and that we have to support easy package-rename build support]. that would support the already mentioned proposal to keep firefox thunderbird and so on in the archive as they are. On the other hand we still would provide free, modifiable and redistribuatable software to the community, as we would add some easy rename support at build time (dpatch, optional flag in debian/rules, whatever) to the packages. this would serve both, users and the community. bye jonas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:13:18PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:06:51PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote: Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal. Sorry John, but this is BS. The text of the GPL#6 says: You may not impose *any* further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. This *does* include trademark restrictions. That's simply not true. Copyright law has nothing to do with trademark law. It is perfectly reasonable of the Mozilla Foundation to request that people don't start calling everything and their mother firefox, even if it was based on the original FireFox code. Well, let's use another example, the official Debian logo. You can only use the official logo if you distribute an unchanged version of Debian. However if I change something I might get the official logo usage revoked [1]: 3. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product [1] http://www.debian.org/logos/ -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question regarding offensive material
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. My questions: = 1) Is it a bug at all? There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) 3) Is there any section in the Debian Policy that addresses these social/psycholgical issues? I had a look, but could only find issues related to freedom and licenses. -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 12:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Using prelink invalidates the md5sums of files belonging to Debian packages. Has anyone done any work to address this? The only way to address that is to update the md5sum after prelinking is done. I might be talking out of my arse (99% probability ;-)) but I thought I'd heard that it was possible to store the pre-linking information separately to the binaries, under /var/cache or something for example. Am/was I imagining things? Ian. -- Ian Campbell Current Noise: Slayer - Jesus Saves Randal can write one-liners again. Everyone is happy, and peace spreads over the whole Earth. -- Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:10:06AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: Come on, that can't possibly be the intention. I could craft a license that says you have all the rights of the BSD license, as long as your code is exactly the same as it is in Debian. That would be insane. Yes, but it's not relevant to the case at hand. Why is it irrelevant? Because your example is about code, while the other example is about a name. Not allowing people to use modified code is clearly non-free; not allowing people to use the same name is not. In the firefox case, people say You have all the rights of the license; and as long as it's in Debian or it's not modified, you may call it firefox. Exactly. How is that permissible under DFSG #8. The DFSG does not apply to trademark licenses, only to software (copyright) licenses. [...] The DFSG talks about software licenses. It does not talk about patents (which is a problem), and it does not talk about trademarks either (which I don't think is a problem, but I don't know whether other people feel the same way). A trademark license simply /is not an issue/ with regards to Free Software; whether you're allowed to use a trademark or not has no impact on whether or not you're allowed to modify, study, or redistribute the software. As such, it cannot make the license non-free. Just because the DFSG was developed only within the context of software licenses, it doesn't mean their principles don't apply to other things. Where possible, sure. But principles doesn't mean the rules should be exactly the same. Let's construct an analogy using patents. Company X releases foowhizbang under a BSD license. But contained within foowhizbang is their patented algorithm, which they're actively enforcing against anyone who distributes their own complied binaries. Except they've granted the Debian project an exception. Would we distribute this software? Even though we're not discussing a software license, I think the principles behind the DFSG would mean we would not distribute this software. I hope the parallels I'm drawing are clear. We will not distribute anything that is encumbered with an actively enforced patent, period. Whether we have an exception or not isn't even relevant. We will distribute things that have a copyright licence which is actively enforced. All of the GNU stuff, for example. The two are, again, completely different beasts. The same is true for trademark licenses, and I don't see why a requirement to rename it unless given permission (which, as it happens, Debian has gotten) is wrong. Now, I haven't claimed Firefox's trademark makes it non-free. My question is whether I can use the trademark in Debian. If I look at the Mozilla Trademark Policy, I cannot. Now MoFo has agreed to extend us permission to use the mark. I don't think we should accept that permission. We shouldn't be making deals purely in our own self interest. We're not doing that. DFSG#8 _cannot_ be applied to trademarks. Due to the nature of trademark law, the Mozilla Foundation _cannot_ give a blanket permission to call firefox anything deriving even a slight bit of code from the Debian packages; if they did that, they would lose their trademark. It's as simple as that. DFSG#8 applies to copyright law, where such a rule does make sense and is possible. It does not apply to trademark law, which is completely different. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:13:41PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: That's simply not true. Anyone distributing significant copies of Firefox can have a representative on the security group, which has access to all the confidential bugs. Just ask Dan Veditz [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In fact, Debian already has someone (Matt Zimmerman) on the list. Ah ... thanks for the info. Nevertheless, I think debian has to reconsider if Matt is still the right person to fill that position, but that is of course not your job. I don't see why not. Last I checked, Matt was still part of the Debian security team. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:38:34AM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Their* trademark policy. Maybe the emphasis should have been there in the first place. Do you know the history of the Adamantix project? Yes. It's a Debian derivative which was called 'TrustedDebian' at first. I 'vaguely' recall something about the DPL requesting they change their name... How is this different? The name TrustedSomething implies that the Something in question isn't secure. That's what got told to them, and they were asked to change their name. It's all in the -project archives. Very different from the Mozilla situation. I disagree. They used our trademark in a way which we did not approve, and we asked them to change their name. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On 6/15/05, Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 12:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Using prelink invalidates the md5sums of files belonging to Debian packages. Has anyone done any work to address this? The only way to address that is to update the md5sum after prelinking is done. I might be talking out of my arse (99% probability ;-)) but I thought I'd heard that it was possible to store the pre-linking information separately to the binaries, under /var/cache or something for example. Am/was I imagining things? I was thinking about that solution too. If it doesn't exist, we'll just have to create it. :)
Re: Question regarding offensive material
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. Perhaps maintainers should publish PICS ratings[0] for each of their packages, which can be placed in the package control information, or incorporated into a debtags offensiveness facet? ;) [0] http://www.w3.org/PICS/ -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 23:09, Roger Leigh wrote: I would be very thankful for links to aprorpiate search-and-replace expressions or compatibility functions. Once I was searching for this kind of stuff I failed. I don't have any links I'm afraid. I only learnt GTK+ 2.0, and never used 1.2. I did the work with nothing more than both API references. It's a while back, but it was basically: http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/gtk/gtk-changes-2-0.html ISTR updating from the deprecated GtkCList to GtkTreeView is quite involved but quite simple once you have done it once. I've never updated code that uses custom widgets which is probably substantially more painful. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Jun 15, Jonas Meurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the problem is whether the situation is acceptable under the terms of the DFSG, Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding offensive material
* Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's been suggested to rename erect penis into DPL's tentacle. That sounds good. What about flaccid penis and vagina? -- _ Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin _ Ralf Hildebrandt i.A. des IT-Zentrums | Netzwerkdienste Stabsstelle des Klinikumsvorstandes Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 | Berlin Tel. +49 30 450 570155 | Fax +49 30 450 570962 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.charite.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Jonas Meurer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 12:48]: all we can discuss are principles, not particular situations. if we decide how to behave in every particular situation, we will have very inconsistent licences, copyrights, whatsoever in the archive. Fine. And we also agree that the basis for that is the DFSG? If so, where does the DFSG speak about trademarks at all? The license of firefox is DFSG free. There is no discussion about. That doesn't mean that I personally like every usage of Trademarks. But - there is exactly no reason to rename firefox right now. i guess, the only way to not compromise one of the two DFSG paragraphs is to rename firefox packages. Hello? How is the license of firefox changed at all whether I call it firefox or something else? Please don't confuse firefox's license and the trademark policy - which are two distinct things. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 10:59]: The name TrustedSomething implies that the Something in question isn't secure. That's what got told to them, and they were asked to change their name. It's all in the -project archives. Very different from the Mozilla situation. Nice theory, but not true. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
ke, 2005-06-15 kello 12:51 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt kirjoitti: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery ... 1) Is it a bug at all? There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) 3) Is there any section in the Debian Policy that addresses these social/psycholgical issues? I had a look, but could only find issues related to freedom and licenses. I think the answers I would give are yes, minor or wishlist, and no. I have no problems understanding that someone may be offended by even abstract references to sexual organs. Many people are quite sensitive to such things, whether it is sensible or not. On the other hand, there are more serious issues with screensavers, such as fears that certain types of quick animation can induce epileptic seizures, and more importantly that running a screensaver makes the computer use more electricity than necessary and is therefore bad for the environment. I therefore propose that we do the following: * Don't install any screensaver modules whatsoever, except one that shows a blank screen and turns off the monitor after a while. * All other modules go into a separate package with a warning that they are evil. * Work on getting suspend-to-disk (swsusp or whatever) working properly on as much hardware as possible and then make the default to put computers automatically to sleep (not just the screen) when they are idle (no significant cpu or network use). Obviously this needs to be configurable: wouldn't want a server go to sleep just because the network has been down for an hour. And no, I'm not joking. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 11:01]: Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about Galeon and the others Gecko-based browsers ? Non issue. Nearly all organizations care about internal standards. If the organization policy for web browsers is Firefox, every environment for which Firefox is not part of is out of the organization standard. Non issue. Want firefox ? Really ? Grab the binaries from mozilla.org. And, do you believe we do a service with that for our users and the free software community? Really? Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:51:31PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. My questions: = 1) Is it a bug at all? There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. The idea of being sexually offended by a particular configuration of simple geometric shapes seems rather bizarre. Nevertheless, I don't see any reason for the genitalia references here, so -- why *not* call the first of these models wizard's staff with a knob on the end? GLSnake also seems to make singularly curious use of the word flaccid; and none of these models seem to correlate very well with the many penises and vaginas that WebCollage has been showing me; so I think it would be best if this package were updated to either disable these models by default, or to include better names for them. Or split the screensaver into GLSnake and (disabled) GLTrouserSnake components, I guess... Is it a bug? Well, the package does not perform in a way that matches the expectations of a large number of users. Unless you believe it's somehow a *feature* that the GLSnake screensaver is unsuitable for these users (while giving no overt indication that this is the case), then the other explanation is that it's a bug. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) Does the severity matter? It should be trivial to fix, should it not? I would personally be inclined to treat this as severity: important, were it my package; but changing severities is less important than fixing bugs. 3) Is there any section in the Debian Policy that addresses these social/psycholgical issues? I had a look, but could only find issues related to freedom and licenses. Nope... -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The idea of being sexually offended by a particular configuration of simple geometric shapes seems rather bizarre. Indeed. It's the naming, though! Nevertheless, I don't see any reason for the genitalia references here, so -- why *not* call the first of these models wizard's staff with a knob on the end? I love that (for obvious reasons). GLSnake also seems to make singularly curious use of the word flaccid; and none of these models seem to correlate very well with the many penises and vaginas that WebCollage has been showing me; Tits galore, I say! so I think it would be best if this package were updated to either disable these models by default, or to include better names for them. I favour the latter idea. jwz will flame me for that. Or split the screensaver into GLSnake and (disabled) GLTrouserSnake components, I guess... :) Is it a bug? Well, the package does not perform in a way that matches the expectations of a large number of users. Wait! Nobody ever complained, except for that guy. So I guess it must perform in a way that matches the expectations of a large number of users! Unless you believe it's somehow a *feature* that the GLSnake screensaver is unsuitable for these users (while giving no overt indication that this is the case), then the other explanation is that it's a bug. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) Does the severity matter? It should be trivial to fix, should it not? Indeed. I would personally be inclined to treat this as severity: important, were it my package; but changing severities is less important than fixing bugs. I have a penis, I'm not offended by it. Neither should you. Anyway, perhaps it's renaming time. -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks. This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't see anything in the DFSG restricting it to copyrights or excluding trademarks or patents. So, it is my Humble Opinion that DFSG#8 applies broadly. -- HTH, Respectfully, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Humberto Massa Guimarães ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 14:07]: Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks. This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't see anything in the DFSG restricting it to copyrights or excluding trademarks or patents. So, it is my Humble Opinion that DFSG#8 applies broadly. Apart from the historical fact that the DFSG was never written with trademarks in mind - it speak about licenses, which is _not_ the thing attached with Trademarks usually (as Trademarks are regulated by really different laws than Licenses; the first ones are more or less a monopole handed out by the state, whereas the second ones are contracts). Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagine the following: by your reasoning, there is *no* free software, because writing the software to start with is a burden on the licensor. Some burdens are reasonable. Some are not. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:07:58AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote: Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks. This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't see anything in the DFSG restricting it to copyrights or excluding trademarks or patents. So, it is my Humble Opinion that DFSG#8 applies broadly. DFSG#8 cannot reasonably apply to trademarks, because if it did, the trademark's owner would lose his or her trademark by trying to abide by our policy. Thus, it is my opinion that it should not apply. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:48:01PM +0200, Joerg Rieger wrote: Well, let's use another example, the official Debian logo. You can only use the official logo if you distribute an unchanged version of Debian. However if I change something I might get the official logo usage revoked [1]: 3. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product That is a license to use the trademark, not a copyright license. We reserve the right to revoke a license to use the trademark. Note that many uses of the trademark do not require a license from us. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant parts
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote: ?? ??, 14/06/2005 ?? 16:55 +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo ??: There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to binary package, and architecture independent to data package. I consider some common procedures should exist anyway. For example ones move manpage to binary package and others move it to data package. Who is right? As a rule, put the manpage in the same package as the program it document. Normally manpage are small enough there is no benefit to put them in the -data package, and it is more robust this way. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we accept such a deal as a project? Does the DFSG allow us to? Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #8 -- witch is part of the SC, IIRC -- forbids us to have rights that our users don't have. (Your lines are too long, you're breaking threading and you seem to be dropping attribution. Can you please do something about your mail?) The social contract is not scripture. The Gods of free software did not hand it to us engraved into gold tablets. We are free to reinterpret them - we're even free to rewrite them. And, importantly, we should think about *why* they say what they do. I believe (and history seems to back me up on this) that DFSG 8 was intended to prevent a situation where our users didn't have a full set of rights to the software we provided. Can you suggest why your version is preferable? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The DFSG does not apply to trademark licenses, only to software (copyright) licenses. I would like to know were this is written. DFSG, has it is written, seem to apply to any licenses of a Debian part, not only copyright licenses. -- Rémi Vanicat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 15:27 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit : And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web browser, not without Mozilla itself. There's still Galeon and a couple of others, based on Gecko. Should be enough. Julien, I'm not going to remove Firefox from the distro over this issue. Let it go, it's not going to happen. How about removing it until it is completely licensed under the GPL, instead of the MPL? Relying on non-free software is much more an issue than trademark problems. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
[Marco d'Itri] Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks. I'm curious to know where you got that impression. I just reread the DFSG and it makes no mention of copyrights, trademarks or patents. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:13:41PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: That's simply not true. Anyone distributing significant copies of Firefox can have a representative on the security group, which has access to all the confidential bugs. Just ask Dan Veditz [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In fact, Debian already has someone (Matt Zimmerman) on the list. Ah ... thanks for the info. Nevertheless, I think debian has to reconsider if Matt is still the right person to fill that position, but that is of course not your job. I don't see why not. Last I checked, Matt was still part of the Debian security team. I was just judging from common sense about the spare-time of executives. As long as Matt can ensure that he has the time and resources needed to fill that position, I am happy with it. -- GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Alexander Sack| : :' : The universal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `' Operating System http://www.asoftsite.org | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 12:51 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt a écrit : I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. It's been suggested to rename erect penis into DPL's tentacle. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: C++ ABI change -- freezing unstable for new C++ library packages
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 02:48 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : Furthermore, this package has a long history of triggering weird compiler errors, including several ICEs. Is there a way to test the build with g++-4.0 on all architectures before the transition starts? (Other than asking eleven porters to check if it builds...) Upload a package to experimental that build-depends on g++-4.0 and invokes it in debian/rules? Is experimental autobuilt these days? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
[Marco d'Itri] Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks. [Peter Samuelson] I'm curious to know where you got that impression. I just reread the DFSG and it makes no mention of copyrights, trademarks or patents. ...Although I suppose it's quite possible, given your public record on this topic, that you don't believe the DFSG is supposed to apply to copyrights either. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 15:11]: [Marco d'Itri] Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks. [Peter Samuelson] I'm curious to know where you got that impression. I just reread the DFSG and it makes no mention of copyrights, trademarks or patents. ...Although I suppose it's quite possible, given your public record on this topic, that you don't believe the DFSG is supposed to apply to copyrights either. This sounds like making ad-hominem-attacks when there are no arguments left anymore. Doy ou think this is wise? Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: the problem is whether the situation is acceptable under the terms of the DFSG, Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks. The DFSG applies to everything since the release of Sarge. Haven't you got the memo ? :P JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 13:27 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit : Fine. And we also agree that the basis for that is the DFSG? If so, where does the DFSG speak about trademarks at all? The license of firefox is DFSG free. There is no discussion about. No, it isn't. And that's what we should be talking about, instead of trademark non-issues. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
remove me from all call waves
this program is not right for me and my family thank you for your help
Re: C++ ABI change -- freezing unstable for new C++ library packages
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:22:19PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 02:48 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : Furthermore, this package has a long history of triggering weird compiler errors, including several ICEs. Is there a way to test the build with g++-4.0 on all architectures before the transition starts? (Other than asking eleven porters to check if it builds...) Upload a package to experimental that build-depends on g++-4.0 and invokes it in debian/rules? Is experimental autobuilt these days? Yes, on a best-effort basis (i.e., we try to build everything, but no guarantees are made that everything is built as with unstable). See http://experimental.ftbfs.de/ for an interface similar to the one on http://buildd.debian.org/ -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:43:36PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 13:27 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit : Fine. And we also agree that the basis for that is the DFSG? If so, where does the DFSG speak about trademarks at all? The license of firefox is DFSG free. There is no discussion about. No, it isn't. And that's what we should be talking about, instead of trademark non-issues. Actually, trademarks are all we're discussing here. Some say that the license applied to that trademark is not DFSG-free, but that doesn't matter -- the DFSG isn't about trademarks, nor can it be. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 15:33]: Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 13:27 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit : Fine. And we also agree that the basis for that is the DFSG? If so, where does the DFSG speak about trademarks at all? The license of firefox is DFSG free. There is no discussion about. No, it isn't. And that's what we should be talking about, instead of trademark non-issues. Here, the title of the thread displays as ... Trademark problems. If you want to discuss about the license, it might be wise to do it another thread to avoid confusion. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~ in package versions
I just wanted to confirm my recollection that now that stable has been released with support for ~ in package versions in dpkg and apt, we can now use ~ in package versions for upload to the Debian archive. Is this right, or have I misremembered? -- --- Paul TBBle Hampson, MCSE 8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder? -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. --- pgpjTNZ6bsChb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
ke, 2005-06-15 kello 12:51 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt kirjoitti: There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. A recurring problem. There's no limit to what people can be offended about. I could be offended by some passages in the bible (e.g. advocating the killing of homosexuals), but I see this in its context (it was written in the middle ages) and thus make no fuss about it if I would accidentally read it. Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstract than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. Regarding the specific subject of screensavers: On Wed, June 15, 2005 13:32, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * Don't install any screensaver modules whatsoever, except one that shows a blank screen and turns off the monitor after a while. * All other modules go into a separate package with a warning that they are evil. * Work on getting suspend-to-disk (swsusp or whatever) working properly This is the most wise contribution to any recent screensaver discussion in Debian! I wholly support this plan, please do. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:11:32PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 15:27 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit : And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web browser, not without Mozilla itself. There's still Galeon and a couple of others, based on Gecko. Should be enough. Julien, I'm not going to remove Firefox from the distro over this issue. Let it go, it's not going to happen. How about removing it until it is completely licensed under the GPL, instead of the MPL? Relying on non-free software is much more an issue than trademark problems. Who says MPL is non-free? And even if it is, wouldn't we cut MoFo (and our users!) some slack while the relicensing is in progress? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
* Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]: than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. Make that contains remote references to natural human reproduction since the reproduction of amoebas would hardly offend anyone. This is the most wise contribution to any recent screensaver discussion in Debian! I wholly support this plan, please do. I must admit, it sounds sane and absolutely solves the puritan problem. -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 14:50 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit : Certainly retaining the name makes life easier. But the easier thing and the right thing are often in conflict. I've clearly been very reluctant to take the renaming step, because I know it will cause a lot of acrimony. But just because it's a painful step doesn't necessarily make it the wrong one. Sorry I don't get your point. I agree with Anthony and I share the point of view of Matthew. Rebranding mozilla-firefox is a wrong choice, both in the short term and in the long term. If you think that you can't maintain firefox with this trademark problem, then let someone else maintain it. But *please* do not impose a rebranding of the software because you think it's the right thing to do. I think we have had enough people in this tread who are in favor of keeping the name just like we do with other software in similar situations. But again the people against are the ones who are the more active... :-| I think keeping the name does hurt Debian. No, it doesn't. I don't want to repeat all the points already made by Matthew, Anthony and the others. Consider this a me too for their mails. Regards, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 02:10 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit : In the firefox case, people say You have all the rights of the license; and as long as it's in Debian or it's not modified, you may call it firefox. Exactly. How is that permissible under DFSG #8. The logic behind the point 8 of the DFSG is that the Debian specific part of the license should not transform a non-DFSG-free program into a DFSG-free program. Because a DFSG-free program for Debian only makes no sense. Consider Firefox without the trademark license, it's DFSG-free. You add a trademark license forbiding to call the program firefox if a change was made, it's still DFSG-free (according to point #4 of DFSG). So Firefox is and has always been free for Debian ! Now you extend that trademark license to say that Debian can make modifications and still call it firefox. That's not worse than before because any people taking firefox from Debian would still have a program complying with DFSG... i.e. they have all the freedoms that Debian guarantees to offer to its users. Regards, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 14:42 +0200, Jonas Meurer a écrit : i think it should. i second the idea that debian should provide sources to the community which are entirely free. sources which contain the Mozilla trademarks and ignore their license are not entirely free. Debian defines freedom with the DFSG. Firefox sources complies with the DFSG. So firefox is free software !! End of discussion. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#312897: ITP: texlive -- The TeXlive system packaged for debian
Hallo Frank, hallo Adrian! On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Frank Küster wrote: TeX-Live exists for a couple of years now, and while it might gain some teTeX users, teTeX upstream is by no means dead. So for these users, Definitely. Thomas is himself actively contributing to TeXlive. One other thing is that texlive's focus is on personal computers - Windows, Mac, and i386-Linux, while teTeX is a distribution for UNIX-like operating systems. I'm not an architecture expert, but I can Well, this is not completely true. The list of architectures on which TeXlive runs is quite impressive, I would say: alpha-linux i386-freebsd i386-linux mips-irix powerpc-aix powerpc-darwin sparc-solaris sparc64-linux x86_64-linux and in fact it should also contain i386-windows binaries. (some version restrictions may apply) And in fact this is also a reason for TeXlive, that it runs on so many platforms. We are using it here on our institute were a file server serves the whole of TeXlive via nfs to several clients. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at Università di Siena sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +43 (0) 59966-690018 gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- DARENTH (n.) Measure = 0.176 mg. Defined as that amount of margarine capable of covering one hundred slices of bread to the depth of one molecule. This is the legal maximum allowed in sandwich bars in Greater London. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SElinux and GNU/kFreeBSD or GNU/Hurd
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 16:19 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: If you have a package that depends on libselinux1-dev or if you intend to upload such a package, please find below the correct way(tm) to add SElinux support: * debian/control or debian/control.in (or even debian.control.in.in) Change libselinux1-dev into libselinux1-dev [ !hurd-i386 !kfreebsd-i386 ] The next version of dpkg-dev supports the following syntax: libselinux1-dev [ linux-any ] * debian/rules Add the following lines: DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM) ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM),linux) selinux := --with-selinux endif This is utterly incorrect ... Use: DEB_HOST_ARCH_OS?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH_OS) ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_ARCH_OS),linux) selinux := --with-selinux endif Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Question regarding offensive material
This one time, at band camp, Ralf Hildebrandt said: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. My questions: = 1) Is it a bug at all? There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. It is a software implementation of a cartoon representation of a toy being made in shapes vaguely reminiscent of huan body parts. I hardly see this as a bug. If you are interested in catering to people who are offended by random things, then you could work on it if you like. I would not be inclined to, personally. I think there will always be people offended by something, and that is just not my problem, and not Debian's problem. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) wishlist at best, IMHO. Since it is not a bug in any technical aspect, it most closely maps to 'feature request' in my mind. But I generally hate severity wars, so deciding the course of action for the bug (e.g., wontfix/close vs. working on it) is more important to me than the severity, really. 3) Is there any section in the Debian Policy that addresses these social/psycholgical issues? I had a look, but could only find issues related to freedom and licenses. Not a one, and this is why I feel it is not Debian's problem. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I really feel like it is not out job to police what people are able to see and do with the software in Debian. That is up to the people who administer machines with Debian installed. I admin a gateway/proxy server at a school, and it has very restrictive web filtering, because the school people feel that is appropriate for their setting. There are also no screen savers installed on that machine :) But I don't want you to make that decision for me. Maybe on my home machine I want to see a cartoon toy vagina, maybe I don't. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding offensive material
Hi!
* Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050615 12:51]:
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
Interessting... my I report the wishlist bug, that it should be possible
with GLSnake to show a specific - uhm - thing?
1) Is it a bug at all?
There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that
this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery.
Acutally, I think calling those things bugs is a waste of time...
looking at the Fedora-Installation they seemed to had similar problems,
they do the following:
-{ k's turd,
+{ caterpillar,
-{ arse gegl,
+{ gegl,
-{ kissy box,
+{ ribbon,
-{ erect penis, /* thanks benno */
+{ shuffle board, /* thanks benno */
-{ flaccid penis,
+{ anchor,
-{ vagina,
+{ engagement ring,
-{ Penis,
+{ Shuttle,
That leaves just two questions:
- What is a gegl? I couldn't find it in any dictionary.
- Perhaps we should ask the Debian Women projekt, if it would be okay,
if we replace vagina with engagement ring ;)
(Oh, I shouldn't have made this joke, should I?)
Well, perhaps it would be easier, if glsnake would just be called with
the parameter --without-title, leaving everything to the fantasy of
the viewer (BTW: I really think, that the prayer looks quite similar to
the normal penis), but we would then risk getting bug reports of people
who thing that the flamingo is a double headed dildo...
Well, I think I mail the fedora patch to the bts, they seem to patch a
bit more, e.g. removing bad words from the barcode screensaver. So we
just risk to get bug reports by people, who get offended by religous
material: glsnake randomly shows a crucifix!
Yours sincerely,
Alexander
--
http://learn.to/quote/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:10:06AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: Come on, that can't possibly be the intention. I could craft a license that says you have all the rights of the BSD license, as long as your code is exactly the same as it is in Debian. That would be insane. Yes, but it's not relevant to the case at hand. Why is it irrelevant? Because your example is about code, while the other example is about a name. Not allowing people to use modified code is clearly non-free; not allowing people to use the same name is not. I never said it was non-free. The question is still whether we can accept the use of the name or not. In the firefox case, people say You have all the rights of the license; and as long as it's in Debian or it's not modified, you may call it firefox. Exactly. How is that permissible under DFSG #8. The DFSG does not apply to trademark licenses, only to software (copyright) licenses. So where are the guidelines for trademarks? Oh wait they're aren't any. That doesn't mean that anything goes with respect to trademarks. [...] The DFSG talks about software licenses. It does not talk about patents (which is a problem), and it does not talk about trademarks either (which I don't think is a problem, but I don't know whether other people feel the same way). A trademark license simply /is not an issue/ with regards to Free Software; whether you're allowed to use a trademark or not has no impact on whether or not you're allowed to modify, study, or redistribute the software. As such, it cannot make the license non-free. Just because the DFSG was developed only within the context of software licenses, it doesn't mean their principles don't apply to other things. Where possible, sure. But principles doesn't mean the rules should be exactly the same. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the rules should necessarily be the same. But I am of the opinion that the spirit of DFSG #8 should apply. Let's construct an analogy using patents. Company X releases foowhizbang under a BSD license. But contained within foowhizbang is their patented algorithm, which they're actively enforcing against anyone who distributes their own complied binaries. Except they've granted the Debian project an exception. Would we distribute this software? Even though we're not discussing a software license, I think the principles behind the DFSG would mean we would not distribute this software. I hope the parallels I'm drawing are clear. We will not distribute anything that is encumbered with an actively enforced patent, period. Whether we have an exception or not isn't even relevant. That's not true. If the patent was actively enforced, but a blanket exception was given to OSS implementations, we would distribute it. We will distribute things that have a copyright licence which is actively enforced. All of the GNU stuff, for example. Come on, we distribute things with actively enforced copyrights that have DFSG licenses, not just anything. The two are, again, completely different beasts. The same is true for trademark licenses, and I don't see why a requirement to rename it unless given permission (which, as it happens, Debian has gotten) is wrong. If we accept it, we've made a Debian-specific deal to distribute that software. Is that acceptable? I don't believe it is. Now, I haven't claimed Firefox's trademark makes it non-free. My question is whether I can use the trademark in Debian. If I look at the Mozilla Trademark Policy, I cannot. Now MoFo has agreed to extend us permission to use the mark. I don't think we should accept that permission. We shouldn't be making deals purely in our own self interest. We're not doing that. Yes, we are. We're making a deal to distribute software with a certain name that only benefits Debian. DFSG#8 _cannot_ be applied to trademarks. Due to the nature of trademark law, the Mozilla Foundation _cannot_ give a blanket permission to call firefox anything deriving even a slight bit of code from the Debian packages; if they did that, they would lose their trademark. It's as simple as that. Sure it can. Mozilla could have a trademark policy that says If your build of Firefox meets conditions X, Y, Z, you can use our trademark. Anyone is free to meet those conditions. Other projects do this with their trademarks. But the mozilla DFSG#8 applies to copyright law, where such a rule does make sense and is possible. It does not apply to trademark law, which is completely different. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian? What about Galeon and the others Gecko-based browsers ? Non issue. Nearly all organizations care about internal standards. If the organization policy for web browsers is Firefox, every environment for which Firefox is not part of is out of the organization standard. This is how IT is handled in professionnal environments, like it or not. In short, as ONERA's policy will soon be that Firefox is the company's standard, I may be forced to drop off Debian as the official recommendation *I* am responsible for Linux systems if Debian drops Firefox out because of some license/trademark/whatever_you_call_it issues. Please relax. The discussion is not whether we drop Firefox from the distro. This will not happen, Firefox will still be here for as long as it's free software and useful. The *only* issue is whether we can use the name Firefox or not. No matter what is decided, the software is going to be in Debian. And, no, we won't switch to Galeon. Not unless there is a Windows port (yes, I live in the real world, where MS-Windows exists and will exist for a long time). So, please, people who enjoy swimming in the nasty pool of licenses and legal stuff, don't make me just ban Debian of my own company. Or make me maintain unofficial firefox packages which will of course be of lower quality than those from the firefox package maintainers in Debian. (for most people around who are unaware of it and for more clarity, ONERA is the French Aerospace research center, where I'm responsible for desktop systems architectures) This is probably my first and last comment about this issue. I *hate* legal discussions, licenses nitpicking and haircutting. I understand that some people enjoy this and I even understand we need some people to do so. But I feel there are enough *real* issues and we probably should not begin to invent new ones..:-) I know this mail will sound a bit rude but some parts of this thread really made me nervous. (taking pills now..:-))) -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal trademarks. If a trademark license allows us to ship the software the way we want and there are no practical problems in removing trademark references if it were ever needed then I think it's obvious that we would do a disservice to our users by removing from Debian such a widely know trademark without a good reason. Well the whole issue is I don't believe we're allowed to ship the software the way we want. We would be compromising our principles by doing so. Sorry, I think I must have missed something here. Why are you bothering to ask -devel when you've clearly already decided upon your position? Well I clearly have an opinion on the matter, but I'm not working in vacuum, and I never said I couldn't be convinced. Like others in this thread I disagree with your position. I don't think you'd be compromising Debian's principles in doing this as it's just about the name and it's purported to be easy to change the name if downstream users do patch it. If people want to rip out the guts of firefox then they have to rename it. I see no problem here. Debian has proved it only wants to do nice, fluffy things to firefox, Gervase is being accomodating as far as I can tell. Why do you want to make Debian the distribution that users moan about shipping iceweasel when there is no reason not to just ship firefox? Pragmatically yours, Simon. Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozilla foundation is against DFSG #8? Why not? -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 14:42 +0200, Jonas Meurer a écrit : i think it should. i second the idea that debian should provide sources to the community which are entirely free. sources which contain the Mozilla trademarks and ignore their license are not entirely free. Debian defines freedom with the DFSG. Firefox sources complies with the DFSG. So firefox is free software !! End of discussion. It is free software. I will not claim otherwise. End of that discussion. Now, that that is out of the way, can we call it Firefox? -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding offensive material
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 17:41 +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote: - What is a gegl? I couldn't find it in any dictionary. Genetically Engineered Goat (extra Leg). Part of GNOME folklore, google will tell you more. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:11PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: People seem to be using DFSG 4 as a justification for keeping the name, but I believe that is flawed. DFSG 4 allows for a license to say if you meet conditions X, you can use our name, otherwise you can't. So the TeX guys have a test suite and specifications that you have to pass to call the software TeX. What if the license said You can call the program TeX if it's part of Debian. Would we still call it TeX? That's not what the Mozilla Foundation is doing. Yes it is. They're saying you can call it firefox if you adhere to our standards, and we will determine whether you do. Next, they have determined that Debian is adhering to their standards, so they allow us to call it firefox. No they're saying to Debian: you can call it firefox if you adhere to our standards, and we will determine whether you do. They don't have to make the same deal with anyone else. Maybe they will, but they may not. So we have to assume it's Debian specific (or at least restricted to a small group). Anyone who gets firefox from Debian has the same rights under the trademark license: either they ask the Mozilla Foundation whether they adhere to their standards, or they rename the thing. The MoFo has made no statement that they would grant a trademark license to anyone would adhered to the same standards as Debian. If this were true (and hopefully in writing), I think things would be much less problematic. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 15:27 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit : And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web browser, not without Mozilla itself. There's still Galeon and a couple of others, based on Gecko. Should be enough. Julien, I'm not going to remove Firefox from the distro over this issue. Let it go, it's not going to happen. How about removing it until it is completely licensed under the GPL, instead of the MPL? Relying on non-free software is much more an issue than trademark problems. This is not the issue this thread is dealing with, please start your own thread. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Where possible, sure. But principles doesn't mean the rules should be exactly the same. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the rules should necessarily be the same. But I am of the opinion that the spirit of DFSG #8 should apply. To trademarks? Why? I don't see why that would be necessary, or even a good idea; but I'm sure I can be convinced given good arguments. [...] We will distribute things that have a copyright licence which is actively enforced. All of the GNU stuff, for example. Come on, we distribute things with actively enforced copyrights that have DFSG licenses, not just anything. I didn't say that. Please stop putting words in my mouth ;-P What I meant was, there exists software whose copyright is being actively envorced that we distribute. The two are, again, completely different beasts. The same is true for trademark licenses, and I don't see why a requirement to rename it unless given permission (which, as it happens, Debian has gotten) is wrong. If we accept it, we've made a Debian-specific deal to distribute that software. Is that acceptable? I don't believe it is. Why not? I've seen you say that quite a few times in this thread, but I really don't see what your problem is, sorry. Could you try to explain? DFSG#8 _cannot_ be applied to trademarks. Due to the nature of trademark law, the Mozilla Foundation _cannot_ give a blanket permission to call firefox anything deriving even a slight bit of code from the Debian packages; if they did that, they would lose their trademark. It's as simple as that. Sure it can. Mozilla could have a trademark policy that says If your build of Firefox meets conditions X, Y, Z, you can use our trademark. Anyone is free to meet those conditions. Such a policy would require quite a lot of work, and carries with it far greater risks for the licensor. If you create a copyright license that requires you to meet condition X, Y, and Z before people are allowed to use it, and someone finds a loophole in your license that would allow them to use the software while following the letter, but not the spirit of the license, then the worst that can happen to you is that people are allowed to use that version of your program in ways you did not intend them to. For the next version, however, you can change the license, closing the loophole, and all is well again. That's a problem, but there is a fix. With a trademark policy like that, if people find a loophole in your trademark policy, they might suddenly be allowed to use the trademark for things you did not intend them to, and you might have lost the rights to your trademark. This is a serious problem, and there would appear to be no fix. In that light, I don't think it's unreasonable for trademark owners to make the rules governing their trademark be stricter than the rules governing their code. IANAL, however. Note also that Debian is not about Free Trademarks, it is about Free Software. There's a difference. Other projects do this with their trademarks. Do you have examples? But the mozilla I think you left an end unfinished here... -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Like others in this thread I disagree with your position. I don't think you'd be compromising Debian's principles in doing this as it's just about the name and it's purported to be easy to change the name if downstream users do patch it. If people want to rip out the guts of firefox then they have to rename it. I see no problem here. Debian has proved it only wants to do nice, fluffy things to firefox, Gervase is being accomodating as far as I can tell. Why do you want to make Debian the distribution that users moan about shipping iceweasel when there is no reason not to just ship firefox? Pragmatically yours, Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozilla foundation is against DFSG #8? Why not? You have the right to modify the code whether or not it is in Debian. The license to the code is not specific to Debian so I don't believe that this contradicts the spirit of DFSG #8. The rights are the same for you as they are for users i.e. they have the right to go to Mozilla and prove they produce good enough software to use Mozilla's trademark and call it firefox just as you have. The license isn't specific to Debian therefore this satisfies that clause. I honestly believe the above paragraph is consistent. Obviously there are people out there who will argue that this clause means you can't possibly do it as the name is different and Joe Random Hacker can't somehow break firefox yet ignore the Mozilla Foundation and trade on their good reputation by using their name. I think however that that is a specious argument and that all sane users of firefox will be able to negotiate as you have done or not bother and change the name. The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via Gervase in this long running debate which he has continued to follow despite the criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. Obviously if they turn around in the future and say oh we hate your blah patch you can't use the name then we can /then/ make it a big issue and change the name to iceweasel and be happy. I honestly think this is unlikely though and to do so now would be not only be premature but be harmful to users and your/the project's relationship with Mozilla. Simon. -- Just another wannabie |will-h the seat on my | Just another fool --+ toilet has more uptime +--- This message was brought to you by the letter X and the number 39. htag.pl 0.0.22 -- http://www.earth.li/projectpurple/progs/htag.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:23:19PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: The MoFo has made no statement that they would grant a trademark license to anyone would adhered to the same standards as Debian. If this were true (and hopefully in writing), I think things would be much less problematic. Well, that's something to work with. Have they been asked whether they would be willing to make such a statement? -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:07:58AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote: Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks. This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't see anything in the DFSG restricting it to copyrights or excluding trademarks or patents. So, it is my Humble Opinion that DFSG#8 applies broadly. DFSG#8 cannot reasonably apply to trademarks, because if it did, the trademark's owner would lose his or her trademark by trying to abide by our policy. Thus, it is my opinion that it should not apply. This simply isn't true. There are examples of OSS projects granting trademarks based on test suites and specifications, not based on who you are. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Peter Samuelson writes: I'm curious to know where you got that impression. I just reread the DFSG and it makes no mention of copyrights, trademarks or patents. The legislative history of the DFSG makes it quite clear that it was only intended to apply to copyrights. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: Does the opposite make it worse? I think so. IMHO it makes no difference at all. The normal, regular, I-dont-read-debian-mailing-lists folk install the Gnome Desktop or the KDE Desktop tasks, see the Web Browser icon, double-click it and voila. As long as it works (and as long as they can install the Macromedia plugins), they don't care. The rest of the world knows Debian renamed Firefox as Iceweasel to escape Mozilla Foundation's arcane trademark license. I don't think it's arcane. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, which Debian itself has done in the past (TrustedDebian - Adamantix) You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you either rename it to something else or get permission to call it firefox. Doesn't sound non-free to me. Please explain to me why it's alright to get special permission to use a trademark but not ok for a software license? -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian menu update and /usr/share/menu transition
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:34:06PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: [snip] 3) menu now support automatic translations of menu sections, in 32 different languages and this is supported out-of-the-box by a fair number of window-manager in Sarge. Crappy snapshots here: http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/menu-snapshot Sounds great! Do you have a list of the translations available, so that people who's language is missing can submit a translation? Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 18:23]: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Anyone who gets firefox from Debian has the same rights under the trademark license: either they ask the Mozilla Foundation whether they adhere to their standards, or they rename the thing. The MoFo has made no statement that they would grant a trademark license to anyone would adhered to the same standards as Debian. If this were true (and hopefully in writing), I think things would be much less problematic. Well, but if that is your main concern, why not speak with them instead of arguing here? Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Squid + QoS + tc
Hello, I wanted to know if there is possible to add the zero penality hit patch for squid in the debian package tree. The patch is located at: http://www.it-academy.bg/zph/squid-2.5.STABLE10-ToS_Hit.patch - for squid (2.5-10) Thanks -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender. For more information please visit http://linux.bitdefender.com/
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
15.06.2005 pisze Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you either rename it to something else or get permission to call it firefox. Doesn't sound non-free to me. Please explain to me why it's alright to get special permission to use a trademark but not ok for a software license? Perhaps just because this particular trademark license does not make the software in question any less free? Jubal PS. If you're that much convinced that you're right, why did you ask for public comments anyways? -- [ Miros/law L Baran, baran-at-knm-org-pl, neg IQ, cert AI ] [ 0101010 is ] [ BOF2510053411, makabra.knm.org.pl/~baran/, alchemy pany ] [ The Answer ] The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery It seems to me that it's a wishlist item. It also seems to me that a reasonable course would be to disable it by default, but leave it as an option. Second most reasonable would be the reverse. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:12:26PM +0100, Sam Morris wrote: Perhaps maintainers should publish PICS ratings[0] for each of their packages, which can be placed in the package control information, or incorporated into a debtags offensiveness facet? ;) No. I consider offensive some parts on the bible, which go against my common sense of evolutionary scientist, and i could go on and on, and Debian is not the place to discuss if they are suitable or not. They are open [1], thus they are in Debian. [1] gg: DFSG -- Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.10|Helsinki Finland GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69 Good night and sweet dreams... which we'll analyze in the morning. --Dr Alex Brulov (Spellbound) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian menu update and /usr/share/menu transition
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 05:38:06PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:34:06PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: [snip] 3) menu now support automatic translations of menu sections, in 32 different languages and this is supported out-of-the-box by a fair number of window-manager in Sarge. Crappy snapshots here: http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/menu-snapshot Sounds great! Do you have a list of the translations available, so that people who's language is missing can submit a translation? The list of supported language code can be found in /etc/menu-methods/lang.h, or in http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/menu/po-sections/?cvsroot=menu Christian Perrier and the Debian Installer L10N have agreed to translate Debian menu sections. The list of language support by Sarge is: Basque Brazilian Portuguese Catalan Chinese [GB] Chinese (traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Esperanto Finnish French Galician German Greek Hebrew Hungarian Indonesian Italian Japanese Lithuanian Norwegian Bokmål Norwegian Nynorsk Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Spanish Swedish Turkish Ukrainian Vietnamese I will take that opportunuity to thanks to all the Debian translators for their work! Cheers, Bill.
Re: TODO for etch ?
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: - insert your items here - Improve hardware detection, make sure excluded kernel modules only need to be listed one place. OK. Something to improve uppon. - Replace default syslog-daemon to one capable to storing severity/facility in the log file. People can install their own syslog replacement. I don't see a reason why we need to change something that works now for most people. - Change boot system, to one capable of handling dependencies and parallell invocation, to speed up the boot process. Err.. Why? The current slow bootup is caused mostly by hardware detection from my experience. Speeding up hardware detection or remove it in favour of manual /etc/modules entries would speed up the boot process a lot more than changing the boot process. If it ain't broke, do not fix it. - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:50:44PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you either rename it to something else or get permission to call it firefox. Doesn't sound non-free to me. Please explain to me why it's alright to get special permission to use a trademark but not ok for a software license? As I explained in another mail: The fact that the risks for errors in trademark licensing are far greater. You might entirely lose your trademark with one lawsuit; you will not lose your ownership of the copyright on one software program with one lawsuit. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
