"Warren Turkal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can someone take a look at these docs at [1] and let me know if the XML
schemas that are distributed by XBRL International can be redistributed in
a
Debian compatible way? It doesn't look like the documents can be mod
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>> Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new
>> font (and not much else beyond that).
>
> True.
>> The copyleft on the font doesn't bind the program for any use I can
>> imagine. Not because of the document exemption, but because of this:
>>
>
On 12/8/06, Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this
> definitely disallows it.
Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new
font (and not much else beyond that). This is of co
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this
> definitely disallows it.
Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new
font (and not much else beyond that). This is of course a bad thing, but
it can be said of virtually any c
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:36:18 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006
> > [...]
[...]
> > > 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved
> > > Font Name(s) unless [...]
> > I believe
* Michael Poole:
>> That having been said, I am inclined to agree that this presents a very
>> murky
>> issue made complicated by the debian packaging system. If 'apt-get install
>> firefox' is functionally equivalent to 'apt-get install iceweasel' then you
>> likely have either plan old "con
"Sean Kellogg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:47, Ben Finney wrote:
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:30, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Apparently law instead requires us to assume users are in f
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I just checked and apt-get displays what it is going to install and
> > asks ``Do you want to continue? [Y/n]'' unless the user has explicitly
> > configured their system not to do so. How is that significantly different
> > to 'coke
MJ Ray wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I guess then I don't understand why. What I saw was a package
> > called 'firefox' that Depends: on Iceweasel. So that means
> > if I type ``apt-get install firefox'', apt-get will see the
> > dependency and install Iceweasel. That's
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It is true that a purely functional indication cannot be affected by a
> > > trademark. So if something cannot function without having part of it
> > > named ``firefox'', then that wo
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006
> [...]
> > 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
> > in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
>
> This restriction does *not* fail the DFSG (beca
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, you propose that Firefox refers to both the code base and the browser?
Not only that, but firefox (lowercase, not as in the trademark) is also
a debian control field term and an executable invocation. None of those
are used to label packages in the tr
MJ Ray wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] When a user does "apt-get install firefox"
> > he is not saying "I want to install a firefox", but "I want to install
> > the browser with the name Firefox".
>
> Or are they saying "I want to install a web browser" in a similar
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> would carry the name firefox. There's no such thing as a firefox. [...]
Others have explained that the package doesn't do that and that there is
such a thing as a firefox.
> [...]
* Sean Kellogg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061207 00:26]:
> Debian just doesn't want to be bothered with the hassel of
> having to build the brand of Iceweasel, so it appears to have decided to
> co-opt the Firefox name.
That is a lie.
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRI
15 matches
Mail list logo
