Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Yes, these are vague criteria but that is to a certain extent
inherent in trademark law. You don't know what people will do
and how that can affect your trademark.
Wait, the Debian Project should clarify
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 06:26:01PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Actually, I believe we specifically want to authorize diminishing the
distinctiveness or harming the reputation. Trademark dilution and
trademark libel suits are not appropriate for free software, if they are
ever appropriate.
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
interpreted?
Amazingly few, but yes, as some of it is based on guessing how
still-changing legal systems are developing, or how particular licensors
will react to our actions.
At least twice,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrm, there is a difference between *referencing* a trademark when
criticizing the holder, and *using* the mark, in trade, in a way that
reflects badly on Debian. [...]
Two data points:
SJVN's use of the debian trademark when criticising the
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:26:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrm, there is a difference between *referencing* a trademark when
criticizing the holder, and *using* the mark, in trade, in a way that
reflects badly on Debian. [...]
Two data points:
Nathanael Nerode writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text
licensing / freeness issue):
Alternate suggested GR text:
---
The Debian Project notes that many license texts are copyrighted
works, licensed only under meta-licenses which prohibit the creation
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:59:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Yes, these are vague criteria but that is to a certain extent
inherent in trademark law. You don't know what people will do
and how that can
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:06:22 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
interpreted?
Amazingly few, but yes,
[...]
Licences are another type of greyness: unlike Mozilla's software, it's
very easy to
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks.
In the US:
The word Debian is a regestered trademark of SPI. Or more accurately, the
word Debian is a trademark registered by SPI on behalf of the Debian
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Ok, then I would suggest moving that out of the first sentence and
into a new paragraph. The above exception only applies for the
situations described in Exhibit Z. Then you can write an Exhibit Z
for your
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:19:19 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Ok, then I would suggest moving that out of the first sentence and
into a new paragraph. The above exception only applies for the
situations
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:19:19 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
The mere fact that I use the name and logo of the project can't
be reason enough to assume affiliation or association.
Mmmh, the Debian Official Use Logo implies endorsement by the Debian
Project.
Yes,
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:11:57 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
To use them as long as there's no confusion going on.
If a logo means endorsement, you cannot use it on non endorsed
products.
If the license works like this, I cannot take the official logo
and use
Hello,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(There is a special exception for the license texts and similar legal
documents associated with works in Debian; modifications and derived
works of these legal texts do not need to be allowed. This is a
compromise: the Debian group encourages authors of
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion:
that the license texts which have restrictions on modification are
non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian
against the Social Contract.
License texts which are being
17 matches
Mail list logo
