Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Under English law, I'm only allowed to say "Daniel wrote ... "
> > and include a chunk of copyrighted material within limited
> > parameters called "fair dealing".
> How do you d
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for dual licensing, the CC-BY really is my favourite license for
> written text. I don't want to use a software license for non-software.
Well, if you want to do something inherently non-free, like prevent
honest mention of your name outside authorsh
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] This concept is pretty easy to grasp. You can add
> restrictions, unless there is an SA in the license. You can not remove
> restrictions.
Presumably one cannot add to a ND licence either?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But those cases are covered by Fair Use rights. You are always allowed to
> say "Jeremy said ..." :) or to put someone's work (and name) on a
> bibliography, or a footnote. Those are all "fair use".
Under English law, I'm only allowed to say "Daniel wr
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * The requirement to maintain a LEGAL file.
> I don't think this one is really a problem; it's similar to the GPL
> saying you must mark your modifications as such.
This LEGAL file doesn't seem to say that we have to leave the
contents we got untouch
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The letter could just clarify that (1) the author names don't have to
> be prominent,
That would probably work.
> (2) the license does not interfere with fair-use rights
> (e.g. quoting you on a bibliography)
Is this trying to reverse the author name
Philipp Kern wrote:
> could you please link me to a FAQ about legal concerns which could come
> up when using the GPL?
I think you are looking for
http://gnu.hands.com/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
or maybe a nearby question. About OpenSSL, see
http://gnu.hands.com/licenses/license-list.h
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > So were we (expecting this to be a trivial bug which would be rapidly
> > corrected), but when they were asked we got a non-response and it
> > hasn't been fixed *years later*, which made us rather less sure.
> Alright, let me h
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps a (wishlist?) bug should be file against the latex2html package.
> What do you think?
Such a good idea that Roland Stigge already did it:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=221703
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently
> >> modifiable without also admitting the possibilit
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] free but hard to hack. I don't really see how
> > you can blanket-ban them from main. As pointed out elsewhere,
> > practical concerns usually keeps us away from these
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > The odds are that we always have something that it is possible
> > to modify *somehow* by necessity of packaging, so why do you
> > think we need to worry about that and
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] *You* specialised the subthread, so you shouldn't
> > start playing people offside by regeneralising it.
>
> Jeremy said "We're not worried about how modifiable the end result is.
Michael Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This project was recently shut down by FSF, since he used pirated
> code for his project. He will soon restart the GNUVcg project with
> a proper code base. Therefore I'm asking you to remove the illegal
> package from your servers.
If mike's message a
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read Jeremy's message as suggesting that whether something was the
> preferred form of modification for the author was more important than
> whether or not it was modifiable by anyone else.
Maybe Jeremy could have sprinkled a "just" or some
"reasonabl
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we have very, very different ideas about the goals of free
> software. In my world, we ask for source code because the ability to
> modify code is fundamental to free software. I'm not quite sure how that
> works for you.
I hope that you are nev
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2005 12:25:52 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > Maybe, but good/poor comments are a bit more judgement than
> > the DLSes give too. They say "this licence is foo" rather than
> > giving recommendations for what you thi
Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, debian-wankers, got it.
I really didn't understand that until I read Josh's explanation. I
don't read many Marco d'Itri spews, so I thought you were ranting.
I was thinking of something a bit more like the short-term private
lists that exist for short
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2005 11:17:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already
> > in main and check the copyright file.
> Imitating other licensors and repeating the same poor choices again and
> ag
Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] debian-legal is not *the* place
> where it should be debated, where else could it be ?
Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need a new list.
[...]
> Now, not everybody installing Debian on their belief
> it is the distro most committed to
Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to hear your comments on the matter
> before I submit a bug report asking for the removal
> from base of the nv X driver and possibly also of the
> rivafb kernel module for severe policy violation. [...]
So you've already decided to submit a bu
ctually, the copyright files are all linked from
packages.debian.org now.
If anyone thinks it's a good idea to generate indexes from
copyright files, I'm happy to help, but I don't have a local
debian mirror to play with.
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Here's an interesting p
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:00:32 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > In the majority of cases, a license /is/ either free or non-free.
> [snipped: although there are exceptions...]
> I agree and must say (as I already did in the past) that we should find
> a way
Daniel Goldsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> None of that seems to have any connection at all with Debian
> GNU/Linux, and IMO seriously devalues the Debian name by inferred
> connection and/or approval.
Actually, if they just had the rest of it, I wouldn't be so
bothered and it's probably out of
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-26 03:29]:
> > See also: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00521.html
> I've reviewed your arguments in the link above and see what you're
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would I be correct in saying that as long as copyright is not infringed,
> it is fine to distribute art that is used as a trademark, as long as
> you do not use it as a trademark. As a concrete example, if I were to
> distribute 'foo Linux', that contai
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> "You may not have any cookies right now".
>
> It's a reflexive negation rewording of "May I " -> "You may not ".
[snip]
Well, that's fine, but if I don't need your permission in order
to have cookies, it's sort of irrelevant. Also, it doesn't
actuall
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Having just reread your post again, I think I realise what you are
> saying. Because they wrote the 'condition' as "Products derived from
> this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their
> name, without prior written permiss
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nice unmarked trim. Try another tactic.
> [...] Is English your first language?
Yes, born within 60 miles of Oxford, my English is as English as it
gets, except when I talk dialect. Try another tactic.
> I find it hard to believe that any native speaker
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] However, conventionally, "may not do foo" is supposed
> to be parsed as (a) whereas "must not do foo" is usually parsed
> analogously to (b) - which makes them actually mean the same in
> natural English.
Which convention specified that change in
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 07:04:44PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > php4's licence says "may not be called" but isn't "may not ..." a
> > lot different to "must not ..."? I don't think anyone ne
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since Debian is (or at least may be) distributing patches in their
> packages that are not part of upstream, we are distributing a derived
> product and hence must not name it PHP.
php3's licence says "must not" but only for "endorse or promote"
which I
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ideally, mplayer should have entered Debian some two years ago. This is
> not an ideal world. In this real world, mplayer is not in the archive,
> and my first priority is getting it in there. [...]
OK, back to priority one: copyright-wise, your package loo
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you should compare
> mplayer and the win32codecs.sh which installs win32codecs
> to
> libdvdread3 and the installer which installs libdvdcss2
I've explained why I think that is not a good comparison.
libdvdcss2 is not in the distribution because of fears tha
Please don't cc me or send me HTML duplicates (see also debian lists
code of conduct). Thanks to Henning Makholm for replying already with
some answers I couldn't remember. I agree with all of that post.
Further, it looks like this doesn't need to be a native package.
a. wrote:
> MJR wrote:
> >deb
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian,
> namely version 1.0pre6-1
I have reviewed this package, but I've not tried building it.
Here are my first comments, split under your headings.
> --- HISTORY and CURRENT STATUS=20
The README.Debian refers
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please explain to them why their behavior frustrate the Debian
> community. (But stop your blood from boiling first...)
If you have the time, please go and do it. IETF have been broken
awhile and I do not believe they are ignorant that:-
* it is not n
"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
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that he's even presenting this tired old argument means that
> either nobody is competently presenting the arguments for freeing of
> standards documents, or the arguments aren't being heard ...
Thank you for writing a rebuttal, Glenn. I agree wi
Josh King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there another license then that should be used in place of the GFDL?
> Creative Commons? Something else?
I think the usual advice is for simple contributions to be licensed
under a permissive non-copyleft (like MIT/X11) and full manuals to
be put under th
Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] in light of the disagreements
> between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the
> GNU "Free" Documentation License being one prominent example[1]).
That's not the disagreement, as far as I can tell. I know we're
lazy, but "fre
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >You treat the DFSG as a set of pesky rules to be weaseled around and
> >dictionary-lawyered, instead of a set of guidelines to be followed.
> No, I don't. (Nice arguments these...)
OK, to avoid your dictionary lawyering:
To mos
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any copies of the presentation will be made available under
> > a creative commons license. [...]
> I would think DebConf5 organization committee should be contacted about
> this issue.
I've already questioned it, before seeing your message. Hope that'
Glenn L McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think if a licence has been accepted as complying with the Open Source
> Definition, then the burden of proof should be on on the people who want
> it excluded from debian. [...]
You think debian should be bound by a buggy derived project's decisions?
Glenn L McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that the DFSG is a Guideline, those guidlines are
> open to interpretation, and debian legal is seen as the authoritive
> place to interperate the DFSG in new or changing conditions.
Your vision is impaired, then. I posted a reply to Gerv i
Glenn L McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its debating "user freedom" vs "free software developers freedom", to
> argue one is more valuable than the other is a chicken and egg argument.
It's trying to balance the original developer's rights against
derived work developer's rights too. I've bee
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's just a case of multiple licenses, though; if someone asks "is
> this free?", we need to evaluate the licenses applying to the program--
> all of them, not just the most obvious ones. [...]
Fine, see it that way if you like. I don't. If people post
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's take just one example. The Mozilla Foundation is very keen that
> nothing ships as "Firefox" which contains spyware. How would you define
> "spyware" in a watertight way for the trademark license document?
It looks like it's called "Software Up
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It still doesn't seem to me like the "programs are free or non-free, not
> licenses" bit applies most of the time. Besides, most of the time we
> evaluate licenses, we do so without any idea of the original author's
> intent or beliefs (except as embodied
Here's the interesting thing: are the summaries trying to be
everything to everyone and that's why they don't work?
Francesco Poli wrote:
> When I find out some useful or interesting piece of software (i.e.
> program or documentation or music or ...), I try to determine its
> (DFSG-)freeness. [...
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > My main argument for not mixing them is that most of these terms
> > seem extend software patents into places which don't have them
> > yet, but do have software copyright. [...]
> That seems like a rea
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
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm undecided about these clauses. One argument against them seems to
> be "don't mix patents and copyrights", but I havn't seen much of a case
> for that--it seems to say "don't try to protect against patents via
> copyright", but copyright is all we hav
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better?
Yes, it would, but I can't find details of a licensing forum on
their pages. Where is it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a non-public enquiry service, as far as I can tell.
It does not seem to publish performance statis
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
> with "program" replaced by "text", "object code" by "typeset form", and
> with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)?
It would be possible (
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Get him to put your IRC log in a LICENSE file in the tarball. That should
> > be enough for most people, if you're comfortable with it.
> The LICENSE file in a tarbal
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He has now posted this at his website at
> http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/, frmo where the code is
> downloaded:
Put a snap of it in the copyright and yes, I'd probably take those odds. ;-)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I
> didn't find it in the archives.
Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first?
I'll answer because I doubt the hard-pressed FSF enquiry service
wil
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the rest of the driver software satisfies the DFSG, contrib is the
> least controversial place to put it.
Just to clarify, it looks like the driver always needs a firmware file
for operation, which is uploaded to and run on an embedded processor.
I do
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/
> When asked about licensing, the author replied that he doesn't like
> licenses and refused to create one. But:
The author is well-meaning, but I think current law says his work is
copyright and all rights reserved u
Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may sound off-topic first, but think about these future scenarios:
They are actually that: future. By the time they occur, we'll probably
have had CDDL 1.2, 1.2.5, 1.2.5.1, 6, 7, 8 and 10 ;-)
Anyone can ask again when it's relevant.
--
To UNSU
Thanks for the wdiff files. None of the parts commented on previously
seem to have changed much, so I agree that each piece of software under
this licence should be checked. Key things to look at are the extent
of the "descriptive text" claimed for section 3.3 and what venue terms
are given in the
Mark Brown > > For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had vanished -
Francesco Poli > So did I.
Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period
summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you
mean the long licence summaries? What would they have don
I'm sorry that Nick feels misunderstood. The point I was trying to
make was that the proposition as written was far too broad and agreeing
with it probably means agreeing with popular bogeymen like the "pet a cat"
licence.
Nick wrote:
> So the question I was trying to ask was "do we believe that t
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
> have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
That "given" was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
implementing some EU directive in the 1990s IIRC. In general, it
Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] However, I felt that a statement on a website was not
> sufficient to supercede the license distributed with the code itself.
> I'm passing this on to debian-legal for further opinions.
I agree with your feeling on this. The licensor seems to be say
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Your messages suggested that you'd review "after a few months"
> > mainly to see who is summarising, so now seems like a good
> > opportunity. Do you have other comments about whether this turned
> > out like you imagined?
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding. I thin
Nick proposed:
> > Debian accepts that it may in certain circumstances be desirable
> > (or at least acceptable) for software licenses to limit certain
> > freedoms in order better to protect Free Software as a whole.
Start with something uncontroversial and then build to:
[...]
> >
When you contacted debian-legal about this licence last month, the
general opinion seemed to be that each case needed checking.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg2.html
I think it is unhelpful of you:
* not to remind us that you asked about this licence before,
* not to find out
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >*D R A F T*
> >Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0
> I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my
> summary. Please indicate why:
> [ ] What a lo
> ImageJ is a work of the United States Government. It is in the public
> domain
> and open source. There is no copyright. You are free to do anything you
> want
> with this source but I like to get credit for my work and I would like
> you to
> offer your changes to me so I can possibly add
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
> >affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?
> Yes, because I do not believe that it is a "restriction on other
> software".
A licence esse
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 a
Marco wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [...] the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
> >to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
> Where "many" in this context should be read as "an handful of people on
> the debian-legal mailing l
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 readi
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > the blasted about: screen calls itself Firefox/1.0,
> It gets that from the UserAgent string, I believe. Set the pref
> general.useragent.override to override it, or general.useragent. to
> change various b
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not far off that. You should only have to change it in
> fingers-of-two-hands places at most; anything else is a bug.
At the moment, it has bugs. For example, it took a damn sight
longer than 10 minutes (excluding new graphics) and still
the blast
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 anyw
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 anyw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
> I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Bullshit. There's no requirement whatsoever that a source file may be
> > > used at all "commercially", assuming the com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
> I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Bullshit. There's no requirement whatsoever that a source file may be
> > > used at all "commercially", assuming the com
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> > Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> &
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > Firefox" and are claiming "Fire
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> > Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> &
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > Firefox" and are claiming "Fire
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
> with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
> you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, bec
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
> with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
> you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, bec
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
> policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
> Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, that's not entirely true. To the extent that a chunk of
> published code is purely functional and lacking in "creative
> expression", or meets either the "de minimis" or the "fair use"
> standard of affirmative defense, it can be copied i
Mike Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the extent that the FSF is willing and able to clarify
> the point on documentation with the Debian leadership, [...]
That's nice to hear, but I think we got the point: FSF want to
be able to include unmodifiable adverts in manuals. (I know the
adverts ar
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
> > which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
> The default build removes the trademarked logos (the fox-on-gl
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we're also distributing files that the user can't modify without
> renaming, so I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. If Mozilla's
> /copyright/ license said "You may not modify this without renaming it,
> unless you have a separate agreement with
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> > be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> > seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
>logos
Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
> - The names can be found in files called b
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without
> including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how?
Spotted another thread (mail is slow here this week) and replaced
the branding dir. Rebuild underway. Still need to replace titlebar?
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * or to replace every and each trademarked reference to the work with
> > something else
> Which isn't too hard, given that we have centralised branding files.
I found and replaced the artwork in my local build, from
mozilla/other-licenses/branding bu
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
> name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. [...]
Is the right to modify the included mozilla logo to signify that it's
a modified version an "important freedom"?
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that sucks
> - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
> understand that. :-)
Do you? We want the freedom to ship software that MF *thinks*
sucks but we don't. After a
801 - 900 of 1495 matches
Mail list logo
