Re: [MeeGo-dev] Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Ibrahim Haddad ibra...@linux.com wrote:
We would ask you to move away from using {M,m}-e-e-{G,g}-o or any subset of
those letters or sounds in that order, alone or in combination with other
letters, words or marks that would tend to cause someone to make a
reasonable connection of the reference with the MeeGo mark. We specifically
discussed one possibility for illustration purposes – which is to use MG in
the place of MeeGo. We do not think that a plain text MG, when used in
reference to the code, as in a file or project or team name, would cause a
reasonable person to be confused.
I like the idea of a unique name that indicates heritage from the
MeeGo project, but is the name mg unique enough? What about a bit
longer name like 'ogeem' ?
It would actually be rather slick if projects just used their names
frontwise-round as a trademarked term, and allowed the community to
use their names in reverse to merely indicate heritage (meego -
ogeem, debian - naibed, etc...). This would provide a
standardized method for pointing at the upstream project without
stepping on any Trademark toes.
(Pronunciation is left as an exercise for the reader)
(Palindromicly-named projects (e.g. PHP) pose a particular problem)
--R
--
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/aanlktimloj3hkt1d34yddbuntrzc=+ennry8tdn...@mail.gmail.com
Re: License review request
Those links are dead for me. I found some other urls in /misc -- are they the same license? (in the future, please include the full text of licenses in the body of email requests -- urls often change, but debian-legal is archived all over the place) http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/misc/lowercased http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/misc/lowercased.html Full Text: The Lowercased License Preamble The licenses for most software include a clause spelled in all uppercase letters. By contrast, the Lowercased License includes a clause spelled in all lowercase letters. For the purpose of interpreting this license, the clause spelled in all lowercase letters should be interpreted in the same way assuming it was spelled in all uppercase letters. This license has two purposes. One is to allow you to use the work, to distribute the work, to modify the work, and to distribute the modifed work. The other is to mock and parody other licenses including a clause spelled in all uppercase letters. The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution, and modification follow. Terms and conditions for copying, distribution, and modification Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work, to deal in the work without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the work, and to permit persons to whom the work is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the work. the work is provided as is, without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. in no event shall the authors or copyright holders be liable for any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection with the work or the use or other dealings in the work. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sorry, no more RC bugs for non-free data in main (was: Bug#385115: chromium-data: Unclear license for some files)
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... ... ... you've correctly pointed out that at least one of the sound files in this package appears to be copyrighted and distributed without a license, and that's a bug that should be fixed. [...] However, even if we find some improperly licensed files in the package, it's not reasonable to require a full license audit of the package as a condition for releasing, because the vast majority of packages in Debian have no more guarantee of license correctness than this one does. IANAL... I don't know what the current policy is for Debian, but finding a copyright violation in a debian package is something I think we all take pretty seriously. If we discover that a sound file in a package is mislicensed (and not legal to distribute), it seems prudent to try to confirm that the rest of the files in that package are being distributed under the appropriate license according to the copyright holder(s). If one file was mislicensed, it is possible that multiple files in that package have been mislicensed. Doing this digging or 'auditing' shouldn't be that hard if there are proper copyright notices on all of the files in the package (if there are not proper copyright notices on the files, then I assume we would not upload it!). If at some point we realize that one or more files are not properly licensed, then that means that somewhere *upstream* someone did not put the correct license on some of the files, and we cannot implicitly trust the stated license from that source. At that point we have a responsibility to determine if we can legally distribute the package (or that part of the package). Our goal here is to distribute FOSS. Removing files and packages for which we do not have an open license is not only the right thing to do *legally*, it's the right thing to do *ethically*. -- Robinson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
On 7/28/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? I'm not sure if the license can be changed, but would it be acceptable to merely *state* the fact, rather than requiring the user to agree to it? Something like: THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT; FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. In order for a person to use software, they must agree to the licensing terms. In this case, they don't have to agree that US export laws may impose a burden upon them, they just are agreeing that the licensor has warned them about the export laws. -- Robinson Tryon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!
On 7/19/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:15:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 07:51:30AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 05:04:02PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If you distribute binary images with a magazine and have something in that magazine saying if you want the source write to address with a photocopy of this specific text, everything is okay. No more so than if you want the source write to address, enclosing a picture of you petting a cat. Unless, of course, you can show that a photocopy of this specific text is a necessary cost of providing the source. You're only required to provide the source to those who received a written promise from you or anyone who passed on the written promise. 3b) Accompany it with a written offer [...] to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code Sorry, I just don't see how your interpretation comes out of that. Can you elaborate further? (from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid) \\\ What does this written offer valid for any third party mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what? Valid for any third party means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it. If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. /// I agree that the wording in the license is not crystal clear. IANAL, but I wonder if that piece of the GPL could not be worded better (maybe consider for GPLv3?) Here's a longer piece of that section (3b): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html \\\ b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy /// If any third party *knows* about the existence of such an offer -- perhaps because they know that Company A licensed some software to Company B under the GPL -- could they cite its existence and thereby claim their right to a machine-readable copy ? My guess is that the lawyers who drafted the GPL knew or believed that the courts would interpret such a written offer like a coupon: you have to physically (or electronically, etc...) have a copy of that particular written offer in order to redeem it for the source code. Again, IANAL, and I'm sure that a lawyer would be able to give us a more concrete confirmation of the legal implications of this section of the GPL. -- Robinson Tryon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright grants for fonts?
On 7/10/06, Robinson Tryon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still haven't found a license from Adobe for the Times font, so I will contact the upstream xfree86 maintainers and go from there. I'll post a followup once I have more information. For anyone interested... The licensing for the Adobe Times font can be found in the original BDF font files provided by XFree86 (e.g. xc/fonts/bdf/75dpi/timB08.bdf). When the font files are converted to PCFs, it appears that the information is stripped out -- even running 'strings' on the file does not find the license. If the license has been stripped out in the conversion, it might be a good idea to put it into the COPYRIGHT file for the appropriate debian packages to make it easier for people to find it in the future. -- Robinson Tryon (from xc/fonts/bdf/75dpi/timB08.bdf, here's a copy of the license) COMMENT Copyright 1984-1989, 1994 Adobe Systems Incorporated. COMMENT Copyright 1988, 1994 Digital Equipment Corporation. COMMENT COMMENT Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated which may be COMMENT registered in certain jurisdictions. COMMENT Permission to use these trademarks is hereby granted only in COMMENT association with the images described in this file. COMMENT COMMENT Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software COMMENT and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby COMMENT granted, provided that the above copyright notices appear in all COMMENT copies and that both those copyright notices and this permission COMMENT notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of COMMENT Adobe Systems and Digital Equipment Corporation not be used in COMMENT advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software COMMENT without specific, written prior permission. Adobe Systems and COMMENT Digital Equipment Corporation make no representations about the COMMENT suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided as COMMENT is without express or implied warranty. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright grants for fonts?
I still haven't found a license from Adobe for the Times font, so I will contact the upstream xfree86 maintainers and go from there. I'll post a followup once I have more information. -- Robinson Tryon On 7/5/06, Robinson Tryon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jun 27, 2006, at 19:14, Robinson Tryon wrote: Does anyone know where I could find the explicit license from Adobe/Digital for these fonts? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright grants for fonts?
Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jun 27, 2006, at 19:14, Robinson Tryon wrote: Does anyone know where I could find the explicit license from Adobe/Digital for these fonts? IANAL, but: I believe that as far as bitmaps go, Adobe believes it has no case against the 1988 U.S. Copyright Office opinion[1] that held that images of glyphs are not copyrightable. ... Adobe made it a policy that the bitmaps can be distributed free of charge.[2] ... [1] http://ssifonts.com/myths2.HTM [2] http://store.adobe.com/type/topics/licenseqa.html#q5 Thanks for the information! The link you gave is to an FAQ on Adobe's site that states Bitmap fonts have been and will continue to be free of charge in low resolutions. IANAL, but I am skeptical that a single, short sentence in an FAQ is sufficient licensing for this font package to meet DFSG. For one, the term low resolution is not qualified by any metric. -- Robinson Tryon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright grants for fonts?
Hi, I have some software that uses fonts from standard debian packages, namely: - various URW fonts (text/gsfonts) - Bitstream Charter (x11/xfonts-scalable) - Adobe Times (x11/xfonts-75dpi) Each URW font file explicitly mentions the GPL, and the COPYRIGHT file for xfonts-scalable [1] gives an explicit license from Bitstream for their fonts, but I cannot find explicit permission for the Adobe Times fonts. The font files themselves have copyright notices for Adobe and Digital: Copyright (c) 1984, 1987 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. Copyright (c) 1988, 1991 Digital Equipment Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Times is a trademark of Linotype-Hell AG and/or its subsidiaries. The COPYRIGHT file for the xfonts-75dpi package does not appear to contain any pertinent information. Does anyone know where I could find the explicit license from Adobe/Digital for these fonts? thanks, -- Robinson Tryon [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/xfree86/xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-14sarge1/xfonts-scalable.copyright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
