Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
That was done by me for Cebit, like we did for some other years already.
Well, it seems to lack the proper labeling then.
-legal is the wrong list for this, there is no legal issue behind that.
--- Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
But it says Debian sarge special,
As you can see the facts from the web page:
http://www.linux-magazin.de/Produkte/Bestellen/lm_04_06_dvd.html
things can be terribly misleading:
1. You can see DVD-ausgabe mit Debian Sarge.
There is *no* Spezial or
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As you can see the facts from the web page:
http://www.linux-magazin.de/Produkte/Bestellen/lm_04_06_dvd.html
things can be terribly misleading:
1. You can see DVD-ausgabe mit Debian Sarge.
There is *no* Spezial or Unofficial wording on the cover of
Scripsit Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But for the people who *erroneously* believed it's an official release
(something like 3.1r3 or something), they could have asked for a free
download to be available.
That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them to
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
That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them
to anything.
This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
misuse of its trademarks.
I can see on the DVD cover: Debian Sarge. This is all you can see on both
the cover and the DVD. I'm going them
Scripsit Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
misuse of its trademarks.
You are the only one who thinks that a trademark is being misused.
You are wrong.
Not finding any download location, all I can imagine is
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 12:20:59AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10717 March 1977, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
2. It clearly contains packages not on the official update list. AFAIK,
backports like FF1.5 and X.org are not _official_ for Sarge.
Yes, where is the problem?
Before I go on
Hi again!
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060717 18:51]:
That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them
to anything.
This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
misuse of its trademarks.
Please, it is not a misuse of our
On 10718 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, they attached it to the Magazine. And gave us a good number of
dvds for free.
When posting on such questions using your debian.org email address, please
try to be clear about what us you're referring to. I have never heard
that LinuxMagazin
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 19:54 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
You are the only one who thinks that a trademark is being misused.
You are wrong.
You are not in court. Neither of us has the right to declare the other
is wrong.
I am *not* the only one -- I am only one with such a blunt language.
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 22:05 +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
*We*, Debian Developers, contacted *them* and asked them to sponsor this
DVD.
1. As long as it's not their project, is it really unofficial, as it's
made bu DDs?
2. Being it unofficial as it's said to be, as long as it holds Debian
in
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 10:26]:
--- Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
No, it isn't labelled sarge.
As I can see from the _pictures_ (magazine cover + DVD), it's labeled Debian
Sarge very prominently.
Well, the print on the cover is not optimal, but I'm
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 19:04]:
That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them
to anything.
This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
misuse of its trademarks.
This rather sounds like a trollish remark to
Hi!
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060717 23:27]:
Because I suppose that if I made up my own modified Debian and I'm
sticking it to a magazine and label it Debian Sarge, enhanced, I could
be sued for that. I SHOULD BE SUED FOR THAT.
If we promise to sue you, if you do such a
Scripsit Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 19:54 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
You are the only one who thinks that a trademark is being misused.
You are wrong.
You are not in court. Neither of us has the right to declare the other
is wrong.
You can be wrong
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:32:43AM +0300, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
2. Being it unofficial as it's said to be, as long as it holds Debian
in the label, could you explain *WHY* the following wording from
http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/
does *not* apply?
Debian GNU/Linux is distributed
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:04:30 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 11:47:39PM +0200, Gregory Colpart wrote:
I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
Upstreams change license to BSD-like to be sure to have DFSG
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Because I suppose that if I made up my own modified Debian and I'm
sticking it to a magazine and label it Debian Sarge, enhanced, I could
be sued for that.
You can always be sued, but if you could _lose_ the suit, it would
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:04:18 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If there WERE anything that said that modified versions of Debian
must be avavilable for free download, it would mean that something
is seriously, horribly, wrong. It would be a non-free requirement.
You mean like the
20 matches
Mail list logo
