OPTIMIZAÇÃO DE RECUR. DESPONIVEIS
http://economico.sapo.pt/noticias/franceses-e-alemaes-mais-perto-de-controlar-a-edp_125245.html CONTINUAÇÃO (GOV) OBVIAMENTE DEPOIS DOS DISPARATES DAS PRIVATIZAÇÕES OS PORTUGUESES VÃO PASSAR A TRABALHAR PARA PAGAR AS CONTAS DOS OUTROS. GOSTARIA DE DEIXAR DE CONSUMIR EDP E OUTRAS SEMELHANTES PARA CONSUMIR ENERGIA DAS FORÇAS ARMADAS E ALTERNATIVAS NACIONAIS SEM COMPONENTES PARTIDÁRIAS. A FACADA NAS COSTAS DOS BRASILEIROS E AFRICANOS SAIU-NOS CARA, EM VEZ DE CONSTRUIR ESTRAGARAM, A GERAÇÃO ABRIL FOI O MAIOR BANDO DE PUTAS SIFILICAS CEREBRAIS (Chico Buarque, fado tropical) DA HISTORIA DE PORTUGAL, NUMCA TAM POUCA GENTE CAUSOU TANTO MAL A TANTAS PESSOAS. 1º SUBSTITUIR AS EMPRESAS VENDIDAS AO ESTRANGEIRO POR EMPRESAS DE PROPRIEDADE NACIONAL (ORGANIZAÇÕES SEM FIMS LUCRATIVOS SEM COMPONENTE RELIGIOSA) ATRAVÉS DE MARKETING AGRESSIVO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/bppf1netcabo.pt4197b82e727b4f4092738d67bfaf7...@bppf1netcabo.pt
Re: Educational Community License 1.0
Gervase Markham writes: > On 26/08/11 23:09, Ben Finney wrote: > > This effectively means that the trademark license must be universal > > and open to all recipients, regardless of Debian, otherwise it's not > > a free work under the Debian guidelines. > > If you interpret the DFSG that way I do, but I don't think your conclusions follow from that. So “that way” seems to be different for each of us :-) > then effectively Debian policy is that no trademarks may appear > anywhere in Debian. The purpose of trademarks in law is as a > determinant of origin. What in DFSG §8 (or in my explanation of it) makes this infeasible, in your view? > If putting a trademark into Debian requires the trademark holder to > allow software from any origin and with arbitrary changes to bear the > trademark, then the trademark is no longer valid or defendable. I agree. Why do you think that follows from what I've said on DFSG §8? > And such a 'trademark' is no longer a trademark (literally: a mark > used in trade). This is a non sequitur AFAICT (nothing in what you're describing stops the mark from being used in trade), but it also doesn't seem to be crucial to your point. > I do not think that breaking the trademark system with respect to free > software is a necessary or desirable goal for the Debian project. I agree, and I also agree with your statements of the benefits of trademarks for the recipients of a work. I do not think that breaking freedom of software recipients is a necessary or desirable goal for the trademark system. Please also note, as I said, that I'm aware of the opposing forces between control (from the perspective of the trademark holder) and freedom (from the perspective of the recipient of the work), and that the Debian project is grappling with these issues at this moment. You have not, though, made a case for the black-and-white picture you're presenting. Why do you see a plain interpretation of DFSG §8 as “breaking the trademark system”? -- \ “Some people have a problem, and they think “I know, I'll use | `\ Perl!”. Now they have some number of problems but they're not | _o__) sure whether it's a string or an integer.” —Benno Rice, 2011 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877h5wti71@benfinney.id.au
Re: Educational Community License 1.0
On 26/08/11 23:09, Ben Finney wrote: > Bear in mind that the Debian Free Software Guidelines don't allow a work > into Debian if the license is special to Debian. See DFSG §8: > > 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian >The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's >being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from >Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within >the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program >is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are >granted in conjunction with the Debian system. > > This effectively means that the trademark license must be universal and > open to all recipients, regardless of Debian, otherwise it's not a free > work under the Debian guidelines. If you interpret the DFSG that way, then effectively Debian policy is that no trademarks may appear anywhere in Debian. The purpose of trademarks in law is as a determinant of origin. If putting a trademark into Debian requires the trademark holder to allow software from any origin and with arbitrary changes to bear the trademark, then the trademark is no longer valid or defendable. And such a 'trademark' is no longer a trademark (literally: a mark used in trade). I do not think that breaking the trademark system with respect to free software is a necessary or desirable goal for the Debian project. Allowing software makers to build reputations and mark software as being of a certain origin (and therefore having a certain reputation attached) is a user-friendly thing, not a user-hostile thing. It empowers people to make better and more informed software choices. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e5b6be4.8040...@gerv.net
