Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] The Mozilla team seems to be committed to supporting the
Debian packagers in building both mozilla-firefox and
iceweasel-browser packages from the same source base. Isn't this
precaution enough?
We know the Mozilla Foundation licensing
On 01 Feb 2005 17:17:41 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This modified version has been approved of by at least one list
member[2].
I don't remember much about Michael K Edwards except he's currently
MIA from the New Maintainer queue.
I must admit I'm finding this a bit frustrating. I came to debian-legal,
listened to what people (including, I believe, the Thunderbird package
maintainer) were saying, and drew up a document[0] which I hoped would
meet Debian's requirements, further modifying it based on feedback[1].
This
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:21:32PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
This is not a criticism of Eric - as Firefox package maintainer, his
opinion is clearly important. But is this sort of thing merely something
one has to accept when dealing with Debian, or is there anyone in
authority who can
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must admit I'm finding this a bit frustrating. I came to debian-legal,
listened to what people (including, I believe, the Thunderbird package
maintainer) were saying, and drew up a document[0] which I hoped would
meet Debian's requirements, further
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This modified version has been approved of by at least one list
member[2].
I don't remember much about Michael K Edwards except he's currently
MIA from the New Maintainer queue.
http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=medwards-debian%40sane.net
Then
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I must admit I'm finding this a bit frustrating. I came to debian-legal,
listened to what people (including, I believe, the Thunderbird package
maintainer) were saying, and drew up a document[0] which I hoped would
meet Debian's requirements,
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:21:32PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
I must admit I'm finding this a bit frustrating. I came to debian-legal,
listened to what people (including, I believe, the Thunderbird package
maintainer) were saying, and drew up a document[0] which I hoped would
meet
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[MJR sceptical that this sort of branding bug gets fixed quickly]
To be honest (and I wrote the code in Bugzilla which does the
reporting), that's more to prevent anonymous DOS, because they are very
processor intensive. If you want to see them and
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I'm not planning to develop the instructions document by
interactive trial-and-error with you on debian-legal ;-)
Fine, but at this time it's not easy to build a firefox-based browser
that Mozilla Foundation would be happy with, even with reading
Eric Dorland wrote:
Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
specific.
Absolutely reasonable - it would be entirely against DFSG #8.
Umm, I don't understand. You'd like to make a deal but you recognize
that we can't under DFSG #8? That seems very paradoxical to me.
What I
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland wrote:
Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
specific.
Absolutely reasonable - it would be entirely against DFSG #8.
Umm, I don't understand. You'd like to make a deal but you recognize
that we can't under
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:36:33AM +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course. I'm just pointing out that this process is nowhere near done
and you should not lead people to believe otherwise. I'm sceptical that
it will be done quickly, because one still has to hack to get firefox
builds
MJ Ray wrote:
Should I set this in browserconfig.properties or what?
about:config in your built and running copy, or one of the default
preferences files (not sure which) in the source. This probably isn't
the correct fix, but it's one that'll work. I mentioned it merely for
information; I'm
Scripsit Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
specific. Whether or not this is actually against DFSG #8 or not is
beside the point, I don't want to play if it's only because we're the
popular kid. This problem goes beyond Debian.
You
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:29:10 + Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
specific. Whether or not this is actually against DFSG #8 or not is
beside the point, I don't want to play if it's only because
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:28:30PM +, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Alexander Sack wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
Removing trademarks is not the reason why you remove the icons in the
orig.tar.gz. The reason is that the icons are not free.
Is there really a big difference? Is
Scripsit Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the only way out of this is to not contaminate main and to not
stop distributing a firefox package by:
1. packaging weasel packages for main
2. putting a brand (extension) package named firefox in non-free.
On furhter thought, a different and
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the only way out of this is to not contaminate main and to not
stop distributing a firefox package by:
1. packaging weasel packages for main
2. putting a brand (extension) package named firefox in non-free.
On furhter thought, a
Michael K. Edwards wrote lots of convincing arguments and then said:
In this factual setting, I think it's wisest for everyone to
fall back to trademark statute if the agreement falls apart.
Fair enough. I'm convinced :-)
Replace the name of the package will have to be changed in all
* Alexander Sack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[snip]
Mike appears to be subscribed to this list ... Eric, will you jump in if
you have any objections, etc.?
Alright, jumping in... I'm not subscribed to the list and didn't
really have any idea this was generating so much traffic. I went back
and
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the extreme case we could ship a firefox package that depend on a
iceweasel package that contains the actual program while firefox is just
a dummy package that cause iceweasel to call itself firefox.
It would be natural to do
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:53:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
Walter Landry wrote:
There is a difference between simple as possible and undue burden.
It may turn out that as simple as possible is still hard. If it were
phrased something like
To change the name, the Mozilla foundation will find it sufficient
to change only the single instance of
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:53:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
weeks, for which I thank all involved.
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. [...]
Here's my attempt at comments. Thanks for drafting this, but
I'm worried that it tries to restrict future maintainers in exchange
for permissions that I'm not sure are needed
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:59:17 +, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Change the name of the package will have to be changed to the
Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
trademarks and I think it's completely unobjectionable.
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
weeks, for which I thank all involved. Comments are in square brackets.
This assumes that DFSG #8 means
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Change the name of the package will have to be changed to the
Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
trademarks and I think it's completely unobjectionable.
Without commenting on whether this change would be OK or not, can you
see any
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. [...]
Here's my attempt at comments. Thanks for drafting this, but
I'm worried that it tries to restrict future maintainers in exchange
for permissions that I'm not sure are needed
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:59:17 +, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Change the name of the package will have to be changed to the
Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
trademarks and I think it's completely unobjectionable.
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
weeks, for which I thank all involved. Comments are in square brackets.
This assumes that DFSG #8 means that Debian can be given rights over and
Change the name of the package will have to be changed to the
Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
trademarks and I think it's completely unobjectionable. IANADD,
IANAL. Thanks to Gervase for being such a pro.
Cheers,
- Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
weeks, for which I thank all involved. Comments are in square brackets.
This assumes that DFSG #8 means that Debian can be given rights over and
Change the name of the package will have to be changed to the
Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
trademarks and I think it's completely unobjectionable. IANADD,
IANAL. Thanks to Gervase for being such a pro.
Cheers,
- Michael
35 matches
Mail list logo
