On 2006-01-31 00:40, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:34:25 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free
software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they operated in accordance with
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 04:22:01PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
olive
olive I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software
if
olive
olive there were in accordance to the FSF.
olive
olive I personally think that
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:28:54PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Project Athena, Athena, Athena MUSE, Discuss, Hesiod, Kerberos,
Moira, and Zephyr are trademarks of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT). No commercial use of these
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm packaging Shishi, a Kerberos implementation, for Debian. The term
Kerberos is a trademark held by MIT, according to RFC 1510:
...
My question is: What is Debian's policy on trademarks for terms used
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require
the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access
to that work. Accordingly, no program licensed under
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:45:49PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
Without taking a stance on the GFDL issue, I agree with the fact that
Debian should be cautious not to go to far in it's assessment of
licenses. In my view, a license can be free and yet not ideal, the two
are different. And I feel
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the use of a trademark word to refer unambiguously to a specific
technical protocol in package descriptions and documentation (that is,
not in marketing materials) even require a trademark license? I know
that it certainly does not in Denmark, but
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:18:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the use of a trademark word to refer unambiguously to a specific
technical protocol in package descriptions and documentation (that is,
not in marketing materials) even require a
9 matches
Mail list logo
