On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:35:09PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
new root cert, that's cool -
On 7/3/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:35:09PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
These are two very different cases, though. If a
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Why can't we leave this to the maintainer or even local admins though?
These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the
security of
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P
Perhaps I shouldn't have made that flippant comment.
What do you mean you can't? You most certainly can, just rewrite the
license to say that
On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the
security of those users, and they
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:01:05AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
My problem with it is DFSG 8. If we accept a trademark license, we're
attaching additional rights to the program that are Debian-specific. I
understand that the DFSG were framed in the context of copyright
licenses, but I think it
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:01:05AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
My problem with it is DFSG 8. If we accept a trademark license, we're
attaching additional rights to the program that are Debian-specific. I
understand that the DFSG were framed in the context of copyright
licenses, but I think it
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:01:05AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
My problem with it is DFSG 8. If we accept a trademark license, we're
attaching additional rights to the program that are Debian-specific. I
understand that the DFSG were framed in the context of copyright
licenses, but I think it
Simon Huggins wrote:
Do you have a few ideas off the top of your head now of definite things
that cannot be touched?
Everything's subject to negotiation and discussion - see, for example,
my change in position on the SPI cert after consultation within the
project. But here's an attempt to
Bill Allombert wrote:
1) The name of the package (.deb file if you want). This cannot be
changed with much disruption. Does MoFo claims trademark right on
firefox or mozilla-firefox when used as package name ?
2) files shipped in pathname including the string mozilla-firefox or
firefox, e.g.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Simon Huggins wrote:
Perhaps anyone the Firefox maintainer/Debian respects and trusts.
But just because the Firefox maintainer respects and trusts them doesn't
mean they take ridiculously careful care of their private key. The
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Simon Huggins wrote:
Why does the Mozilla Foundation feel the need to enforce quality
through this blunt tool of stopping us using the trademark?
Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P
What do you mean you
* Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
hoi :)
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:18:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific
agreement to call Firefox Firefox.
sure, and the consensus seems to be that there is no problem in
doing so.
* Baptiste Carvello ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi Eric,
First I wanted to say again that whatever your final decision, a build
system
that optionally does the renaming would still be appreciated. It would be
even
better if the MoFo would do it themselves, of course. I'm sure some users
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:38:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free
software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care
about distributors/vendors.
What is DFSG 4
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think if DFSG 4 had intended to grant licensors broad latitude to invent
novel ways of prevent such an inference from being drawn, it would have
been worded differently -- or, at least, the last two sentences would have
been.
Bear in mind that the
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:38:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free
software context. They don't care about free software. They don't
Cameron Patrick wrote:
I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions
which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b)
change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the packages
unchanged from Debian be required to either ask MoFo for a
Salut Gervase!
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:46:55PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Simon Huggins wrote:
That's unfair. I would have summarised more as there's no problem
doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes. I don't
want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:39:05AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Cameron Patrick wrote:
I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions
which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b)
change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:39:05AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Cameron Patrick wrote:
I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions
which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b)
change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:48:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
[...]
So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla
Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel
empowered to make an agreement like this
* Andrew M.A. Cater ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:59:09AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is
ultimately yours -- see the Debian
hoi :)
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:18:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific
agreement to call Firefox Firefox.
sure, and the consensus seems to be that there is no problem in
doing so.
It's only you who doesn't want to accept that.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:03:37AM +0200, Martin Waitz wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:18:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific
agreement to call Firefox Firefox.
sure, and the consensus seems to be that there is no problem in
Simon Huggins wrote:
That's unfair. I would have summarised more as there's no problem
doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes. I don't
want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change of code he has to
run to Gervase and ask nicely. (note that's not quite what's
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the
volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking
at a conference in Wolverhampton.
The volume has been pretty light compared to most
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
Presumably isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they
would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone,
based on the quality criteria that is right now only known to the
MoFo.
How do you judge
On 6/27/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
Presumably isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they
would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone,
based on the quality criteria that is
Gervase Markham wrote:
We say Debian has a reputation for shipping quality software, and we
want them to use the trademark. I would hope you guys also want to use
it, as a well-known free software brand. Why is our recognition of
Debian's quality used as a negative against that happening?
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:48:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
[...]
So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla
Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel
empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian.
[...]
If the DPL does not
Hi Eric,
First I wanted to say again that whatever your final decision, a build system
that optionally does the renaming would still be appreciated. It would be even
better if the MoFo would do it themselves, of course. I'm sure some users would
feel better if they are able to ponder the risks
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is
ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other
words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I
would
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050626 08:59]:
In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is
ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other
words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I
would prefer that you
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:59:09AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is
ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other
words, you /are/
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most
prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as Debian (or
official Debian, or whatever it is you guys
* Shachar Shemesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I am not a lawyer.
I am a consultant trying to understand the world he lives in, and as
such, studied the applicable law a little.
Eric Dorland wrote:
So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla
Foundation, because of
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland wrote:
The thread is petering out
Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the
volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking
at a conference in Wolverhampton.
The volume has
The thread is petering out and as much as I had hoped Matthew Garrett
and MJ Ray would go 12 rounds of bare-knuckle boxing, it's time to
make some decisions.
Some very smart developers have come forward to say that trademarks
don't matter with respect to free software. Unfortunately, I'm still
I am not a lawyer.
I am a consultant trying to understand the world he lives in, and as
such, studied the applicable law a little.
Eric Dorland wrote:
So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla
Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel
Shachar writes:
No, it's quite worse. By ignoring the issue, we are forcing MoFo to
either sue us or lose the trademark.
They are not forced to sue. They need (at most) only send us a
cease-and-desist letter. They could also decide that our use is
non-infringing and ignore it.
Just like we
John Hasler wrote:
This means that if they don't do something legal to us now, they will
never be able to do anything regarding their trademark to anyone else
ever.
You assume that our usage is infringing. I don't think that is
established.
If our usage is non-infringing, then no
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most
prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as Debian (or
official Debian, or whatever it is you guys use). :-)
When I said rights, I meant rights to
Eric Dorland wrote:
The thread is petering out
Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the
volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking
at a conference in Wolverhampton.
Some very smart developers have come forward to say that
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric Dorland wrote:
So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla
Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel
empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian.
If you are not empowered, who
* Eric Dorland
| * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| * 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
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
And this is my problem with the inclusion of MF's trademark usage in
our package: the right to include such trademark *is* attached to
the program (after all, it's the original name of the program (**));
it's a right that *must* *not* *depend* on the program's
I wrote:
The notion that we would be infringing their trademark by failing to remove
strings that they put in is ludicrous. It's equivalent to Ford demanding
that I remove all the Ford logos before selling my truck.
Eric Dorland writes:
Your analogy is flawed. My ford is still a ford if
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Lack of choice of venue imposes a burden on the licensor in case of
litigation - I see no reason why one is obviously free and the other
non-free.
No, lack of choice of venue generally imposes a burden on the plaintiff,
who may be either the licensor or the licensee.
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #8 -- witch is part of the SC, IIRC --
forbids us to have rights that our users don't have.
No, it doesn't. It says:
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
being part of a Debian system. If the program is
** Anthony DeRobertis ::
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #8 -- witch is part of the SC, IIRC --
forbids us to have rights that our users don't have.
No, it doesn't. It says:
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the
program's being part of a
Humberto Massa Guimarães writes:
(*) I don't even know if US trademark law allows them to go that far...
The notion that we would be infringing their trademark by failing to remove
strings that they put in is ludicrous. It's equivalent to Ford demanding
that I remove all the Ford logos before
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães writes:
(*) I don't even know if US trademark law allows them to go that far...
The notion that we would be infringing their trademark by failing to remove
strings that they put in is ludicrous. It's equivalent to Ford
2005/6/17, Will Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
aol/
The ironic thing is, even if we do rename, who is going to do the trademark
search to prove that the new name we choose is not someone else's trademark
who we do NOT have permission to use?
I doubt this is relevent. Unless there is another
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:16:18 -0400
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* 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
* Dale C. Scheetz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:16:18 -0400
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* 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
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland wrote:
But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights
that the user don't have.
Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most
prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as Debian
On 6/18/05, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're skipping the crucial point here. Under the publicly available
licenses/policies, we *cannot* call it Firefox. The MoFo is offering
us an agreement that allows us to use the mark. I think agreeing to
this is against the spirit of DFSG #8,
Hi Eric,
Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 14:45 -0400, Eric Dorland a crit :
I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to
determine is if we should use the marks within Debian.
If it's free, the project as a whole has already decided to be able to
include it. For the rest, it's up
We explained you that your reasoning was ill-advised because DFSG
stands for DF Software G and not DF Trademark G. What can I say
more ?
I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The S in
DFSG does not stand for copyright, it stands for software.
Software usually contains
17.06.2005 pisze Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The S in
DFSG does not stand for copyright, it stands for software.
Software usually contains copyrighted code, and sometimes it also
contains trademarked names or images.
You
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:54:40AM +0200, Miros/law Baran wrote:
17.06.2005 pisze Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The S in
DFSG does not stand for copyright, it stands for software.
Software usually contains copyrighted
I've only been skimming this thread, so I fear this may have been
said. What about:
1) rebrand mozilla-firefox
2) create a permanent transition package with the firefox name
that depends on it
3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox
The description of the transition package
Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit :
You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the
stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use
trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state.
That would be the part where the
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote:
Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit :
You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the
stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use
trademarks automagically
Donald J Bindner writes:
2) create a permanent transition package with the firefox name
that depends on it
3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox
Thereby attaching the name Firefox to something which is not pristine
Mozilla code. This is exactly what it is being claimed we may not
On Friday 17 June 2005 17:08, Raphal Hertzog wrote:
The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they
are ready to give us this right because they trust us). Of course the
right is revocable ... but that doesn't matter. When they decide to stop
granting us this right,
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote:
Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit :
You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the
stunningly obvious proof that a free software
* Raphal Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi Eric,
Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 14:45 -0400, Eric Dorland a crit :
I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to
determine is if we should use the marks within Debian.
If it's free, the project as a whole has already
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:18:29AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
1) rebrand mozilla-firefox
2) create a permanent transition package with the firefox name
that depends on it
3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox
The description of the transition package should briefly
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:07:33PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:18:29AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
1) rebrand mozilla-firefox
2) create a permanent transition package with the firefox name
that depends on it
3) use alternatives to provide
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:10:34PM +0200, Wouter van Heyst wrote:
4) make the program's branding depend on argv[0].
Do trademarks only apply to binaries, or to source also? A running
firefox will prominently display the trademarked bits in question, but
hey, the source being open for
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages
firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as
long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were
modified that they
Eric Dorland wrote:
But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights
that the user don't have.
Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most
prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as Debian (or
official Debian, or whatever it is you guys
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote:
Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit :
You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
Well I don't think DFSG #4 says the rename has to be easy, it just
has to be possible.
Yes. However, the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming,
not being forced to change content.
Don Armstrong
--
Build a fire for a man, an he'll be
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
Well I don't think DFSG #4 says the rename has to be easy, it just
has to be possible.
Yes. However, the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming,
not being forced to change content.
Ummm,
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being
forced to change content.
If I change the name of my program, I also change all references to
that name in program (if for no other reason,
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:47:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being
forced to change content.
If I change the name of my program, I also
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote:
Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit :
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages
firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as
long as they didn't then change them and it was
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
Even if I have followed that discussion from very far, I have noted
that you do not plan this.
But I noted Julien's suggestion to simply drop the thing and
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need to
look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take
any package in main,
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner
consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from
the work,
What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages
Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 01:03 -0400, Eric Dorland a crit :
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
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you
don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozilla
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That there is such a hue and cry over rebranding Firefox in Debian
indicates to me that it *is* a significant burden we would be (and are
now) asking of our downstream users.
Second, the
Simon Huggins wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the
CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our
ca-certificates package. However I can't
Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Second, the real problems with rebranding are not with the technical
work that has to happen, from the sound of it. They're with user
recognition and the ability of users to find the right
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner
consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from
the work,
What trademarks are
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That there is such a hue and cry over rebranding Firefox in Debian
indicates to me that it *is* a significant burden we would be (and are
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 01:03 -0400, Eric Dorland a crit :
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
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you
don't
El Jueves 16 Junio 2005 18:11, Russ Allbery escribi:
[snip]
That being said, we absolutely should not allow the trademark issue to
give MoFo any more of a veto on package changes than any other upstream
would have. If we feel we need to make a change to improve the package
for our users and
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
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 Guimares wrote:
Does the opposite make it worse? I think so.
IMHO it
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:00:17PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights
that the user don't have.
We are only concerned with the rights that apply to the software, not the
name. The users have all of the same rights to the software
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:23:39PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
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
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner
consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be
On Jun 16, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to
determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. Let me try
Good. This was not obvious at all by reading your precedent postings.
another example. If, say, the Apache
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:23:39PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Where possible, sure.
1 - 100 of 289 matches
Mail list logo
