On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This is something that should be worked out with the Ubuntu One
> developers and/or Ubuntu people. So long as we and all of our
> downstream have the ability to exercise the rights guaranteed by the
> DFSG via a trademark grant (or probably even just e-ma
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"
> On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that
> > provided upstream under the same name, there is no license issue; this is
> > nominative use which is not prohibited, regardless of the existence of a
Hello list,
it follows some comments, corrections and questions about
trademarks, based on Steve answer; not realyl relevant to the
initial question/bug.
On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote:
If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that
provided upstream under th
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:48:36PM -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
> I had been looking at this bug for a few days now
> as well the the Ubuntu Trademark Policy [1]. I am
> not a legal person, so I would like to bring it to
> the attention of people who are, to see if this policy
> makes the applic
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:48:36PM -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
> I had been looking at this bug for a few days now
> as well the the Ubuntu Trademark Policy [1]. I am
> not a legal person, so I would like to bring it to
> the attention of people who are, to see if this policy
> makes the applic
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 04:11:10PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, René Mayorga wrote:
> > How about Ubuntu™ One client (#559752), I think that this could
> > affect those efforts too.
>
> Not sure. Parts of it are certainly something that trademark could
> apply to. [I think it
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, René Mayorga wrote:
> How about Ubuntu™ One client (#559752), I think that this could
> affect those efforts too.
Not sure. Parts of it are certainly something that trademark could
apply to. [I think it's ok if it was "works with Ubuntu One", but the
"Ubuntu One client" may be
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:26:25PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Walter Landry wrote:
> > This makes it clearly non-free. It is best to just replace anything
> > trademarked by Ubuntu.
>
> An important caveat though, is that not every use of the word Ubuntu
> is trademarkable.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Walter Landry wrote:
> This makes it clearly non-free. It is best to just replace anything
> trademarked by Ubuntu.
An important caveat though, is that not every use of the word Ubuntu
is trademarkable.
So while the package in question certainly should be rebranded, it's
not
Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I had been looking at this bug for a few days now
> as well the the Ubuntu Trademark Policy [1]. I am
> not a legal person, so I would like to bring it to
> the attention of people who are, to see if this policy
> mak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Sorry, I left out the footnote on my last email. The link to the
document covering usage of the Ubuntu trademark is here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy
- --
Jordan Metzmeier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I had been looking at this bug for a few days now
as well the the Ubuntu Trademark Policy [1]. I am
not a legal person, so I would like to bring it to
the attention of people who are, to see if this policy
makes the application non-free in its curren
12 matches
Mail list logo
