El domingo, 9 de noviembre de 2008 a las 01:35:35 -0200, Andre Felipe Machado
escribía:
Please, I need legal advice about the bug report [0] in APT.
Just a note that legal advice means advice given by someone acting as a
lawyer. As such, very few people in this list is qualified to give
El sábado, 20 de septiembre de 2008 a las 22:38:27 +0200, Ramses Rodriguez
Martinez escribía:
error if they are not installed). My question is: ¿is this behavior
DFSG-compliant or Debian packages are supposed to be 100% self-contained?
If it weren't, we wouldn't be able to have in main any
El lunes, 11 de agosto de 2008 a las 14:44:14 +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet escribía:
While these claims seem somewhat far-fetched, the end result is still
that the author has asserted the work is public domain. Why not
accept that?
Because that is not possible in Germany, where (I believe) the
El domingo, 22 de junio de 2008 a las 12:54:09 -0600, Wesley J. Landaker
escribía:
Actually, how are debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring free-software,
anyway? Do I get source code for the all GPG keys they contain?
The /usr/share/doc/debian-keyring/copyright even says The keys in the
El jueves, 26 de abril de 2007 a las 16:25:40 -0400, Jason Spiro escribía:
I have dropped Tommi, Sami and Joonas from the Cc because I don't think
they want to be bothered too much with this kind of things, and only care
about the results. Feel free to correct me if that isn't the case.
*
El sábado, 21 de abril de 2007 a las 15:10:31 +0530, Shriramana Sharma escribía:
Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library is
dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial licence. GPL is
Now I create Python binding to that library - pyfoo. Now I would like
El miércoles, 6 de diciembre de 2006 a las 16:26:27 +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet
escribía:
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. There
It is not a package for Iceweasel that is called firefox. It is
El martes, 5 de diciembre de 2006 a las 13:57:48 -0800, Jeff Carr escribía:
I notice that recently you have complied with Mozilla's request to not
use their trademarks for your browser packages. However, you can't
also use their trademark to switch users to a competing product.
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía:
But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US
export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would
apply to you in any case.
It says applicable laws, including US export
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 13:14:49 +0100, Stephen Gran escribía:
that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a
license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction?
After seeing licenses that claim not to be affected by any laws that would
make
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 15:39:01 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly,
'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's
hardly non-free.
Another[0] piece of hideous pseudopoetry:
Sorry.
What I
El domingo, 23 de abril de 2006 a las 22:25:35 +0400, olive escribía:
I don't understand this. For photographs, modifications doen't really
make sense (apart from some adjustement). If you want to modify a
In worth1000.com you can find several examples of modified photos...
--
Jacobo
El lunes, 3 de abril de 2006 a las 13:02:58 +1000, Craig Southeren escribía:
If Debian is not ensuring that all source code for it's distribution is
publically available via it's archives, then I agree that this is not
only a problem for Debian, but it is definitaly a problem for downstream
El jueves, 30 de marzo de 2006 a las 16:33:59 +0300, Damyan Ivanov escribía:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
organization (???You???) obtaining a copy of this software and associated
documentation files covered by this license (the ???Software???) to use
the
O Domingo, 26 de Marzo de 2006 ás 20:57:35 +0200, Mike Hommey escribía:
The GPL does require something similar.
Not exactly. The GPL requires you to provide source alongside binary; when
you stop offering the binary, you may stop offering the source. However,
under the MPL, you must go on
El jueves, 23 de marzo de 2006 a las 22:59:46 +0100, Milan Babuskov escribía:
The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages
license proliferation.
GPL does cover it, but GPL requires that modifications are made public.
No, it does not. It only requires that, if
El viernes, 24 de marzo de 2006 a las 10:18:14 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
Licenses that require that modifications are published are routinely
rejected by Debian.
More properly, Works distributed under licenses that...
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org
El jueves, 23 de marzo de 2006 a las 15:55:55 +0200, Damyan Ivanov escribía:
1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is.
2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated
to publish them
3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable
El domingo, 12 de marzo de 2006 a las 13:39:45 -0500, Mike O'Connor escribía:
The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL
and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being
invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in
El domingo, 5 de marzo de 2006 a las 14:44:33 -0500, Joe Smith escribía:
If a court is in doubt as to how the licence is to be interpreted it should
look at such text. Such text, especially if included near the licence, has
If the author intends it to be a request, not a requirement, nobody
El lunes, 16 de enero de 2006 a las 09:07:42 -0800, Don Armstrong escribía:
The Complete Corresponding Source Code for a work in object code form
means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile,
Good, now even if someone codes a piece of firmware directly in machine
El jueves, 29 de diciembre de 2005 a las 15:54:51 +0100, Mickael Profeta
escribía:
If you link LibPreludeDB against other code all of which is itself licensed
under the GNU General Public License, version 2 dated June 1991 (GPL v2),
then you may use Libprelude under the terms of the GPL v2,
El sábado, 26 de noviembre de 2005 a las 11:11:32 +0100, Robert Millan escribía:
That suggests if the maintainer disagrees in, say, DFSG #1 (Debian will
remain
100% free), then we don't have to treat as release-critical an inclussion of
DFSG #4 states:
We will be guided by the needs of
El miércoles, 5 de octubre de 2005 a las 19:12:00 -0400, Joe Smith escribía:
Does this mean that I cannot sell it unless I or anyone else in the world
has modified it? Isn't that stipulation a bit stupid?
I read this as saying you may not sell etc. the original work unless it
contains some
El martes, 4 de octubre de 2005 a las 11:26:03 -0500, Michael Janssen escribía:
Just a couple of comments:
In clause 3: As an express condition for your use of the Licensed Product,
you hereby agree that you will not, without the prior written consent of
Licensor, use any trademarks,
El lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2005 a las 19:34:00 +0200, Claus Färber escribía:
a. place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
make them Freely Available, for example by allowing the
Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard
Version of
El domingo, 25 de septiembre de 2005 a las 10:58:49 -0400, Joe Smith escribía:
Is it just me or is it hard to sue a pseudonymous modifier, becaue their
real identiy is not known?
Yes, but the pseudonymous modifier would have lost the license to
distribute the work, and anyone distributing
El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther escribía:
LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is
NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler
El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 13:07:18 +0300, George Danchev
escribía:
That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in
main, but could be in non-free maybe.
Probably not, according to some interpretations (the GPL does not allow
Right, as explained in
O Martes, 21 de Xuño de 2005 ás 20:07:36 -0700, Gregor Richards escribía:
In response section 6:
(So that I can reference, the full section:)
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original
O Mércores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ás 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escribía:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL. About the only thing that can be done is
O Xoves, 19 de Maio de 2005 ás 19:52:28 +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet escribía:
That's an aspect of EU copyright law I'm not aware of. Can you
tell me which Berne provision or EU directive this is?
Please, next time just say directly that's not so and it'll be easier on
my health. Thanks.
And
O Xoves, 5 de Maio de 2005 ás 10:36:09 +0200, Tomas Fasth escribía:
* 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
*how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any
*accompanying software that uses the DB software. The source code
*must
O Mércores, 20 de Abril de 2005 ás 08:40:21 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
Yes, in places it is too verbose, being that I'm not used to writing in
English :-)
(I think that I've been reading too many American laws, lately. The
provision hereunder, therefore, applies to all persons not under
After suggestions by Glenn Maynard, I rewrote most of the document to make
it simpler and remove redundancies that were repeated over and over ;-
I repeat my point: repeated exposure to American legal texts is bad for
non-native speakers ;-)))
The first two questions were merged into a
O Mércores, 20 de Abril de 2005 ás 11:20:36 -0300, Humberto Massa escribía:
s/software/programs and\/or libraries/g
Darn, I had managed to avoid it in the previous version :-)
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
O Mércores, 20 de Abril de 2005 ás 14:53:18 +, MJ Ray escribía:
Q: Shouldn't we allow documents which describe standards or
personal opinions to be non-modifiable? Why should we need the
same freedoms as for programs?
That's a good one (although I don't like the last question very much,
O Sábado, 16 de Abril de 2005 ás 18:49:15 +0200, Francesco Poli escribía:
Here I don't know if it's me that sees it wrong or that symbol is really
a question mark...
I would do
s/components \? the/components: the/
That's a dash (mdash;), that does not appear well because I cut-and-pasted
O Venres, 15 de Abril de 2005 ás 00:29:52 +0200, Francesco Poli escribía:
Copyright ones are not the only issues that matter when we check whether
a work is DFSG-free.
Oh, you're right.
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
O Venres, 15 de Abril de 2005 ás 17:06:00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribía:
How about this, more to the point? If the author or standards
organization is unconvinced by this argument, and does not want to
Ah, now I understand what you meant :-) I have added something to that
effect.
I'm
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 01:22:56 +0200, Francesco Poli escribía:
A: The DFSG is a set of minimum criteria that are taken into account
when
deciding if a particular copyright license is free or not.
I would prefer if a particular /work/ is free or not.
Actually, it would be a
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 09:37:12 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía:
It could also be fraud, or (strangely enough) in some jurisdictions,
copyright. Although not the part of copyright law that is related to
licensing; the right to not have things misattributed to you cannot be
waived,
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 07:39:30 -0400, Evan Prodromou escribía:
Probably another point worth making is that being in Debian or being
DFSG-free is not equivalent to being good or being righteous.
[...]
Yes, that's worthy of an entry in the DFSG FAQ, only not in the
documentation
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 08:55:07 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis escribía:
Append at the end:
- Discuss it on -project(?). Once you've worked out any problems with
- Propose a General Resolution to amend the Social Contract and convince
Oh, yes. I thought it looked too easy ;-)
--
24 hours have passed, and this is the text of the current revision.
Additions, removals, rewordings, criticism, suggestions are welcomed and
requested. The latest revision is always available (minus network hiccups)
at http://jacobo.tarrio.org/Documentation_licensing_FAQ
When the text is
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 11:46:36 -0400, Raul Miller escribía:
Another example is incorporating documentation into a program, to be
displayed at run time.
Included.
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
I have added this to the FAQ:
Q: If the DFSG are to be applied to documents as well as to programs, why is
the text of the GPL included in Debian, if it says that it cannot be
modified at all?
A: It is included because this text contains the terms under which many
components of a Debian system
O Mércores, 13 de Abril de 2005 ás 16:56:04 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía:
Of course, a copy of the GNU Emacs manual printed on dead trees is
unequivocally documentation,
^
You mean 'not software'. It's always documentation; in softcopy form
it happens to
O Mércores, 13 de Abril de 2005 ás 17:56:11 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía:
I've written this four times in the past week, so it belongs in a
FAQ. Something along these lines should be included:
Done. Now you can start just pasting URLs [1] :-)
==
[1]
O Martes, 22 de Febreiro de 2005 ás 13:54:18 +0100, Eike Dehling escribía:
So unless someone uses it commercially no license applies. Debian itself
A license is a permission grant. No license == no permission.
isn't commercial, so it doesn't apply here. The first sentence even
encourages
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:53:52 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction
not present in the GPL.
In my latest message I didn't really say what I really meant
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:51:32 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen escribía:
I wouldn't be horribly surprised if the names hummer or rubik are
Is HMMV a registered trademark?
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 12:42:57 -0500, Justin Pryzby escribía:
What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction
not present in the GPL.
Interpretation: when you join (by linking) a GPLed work with
O Venres, 31 de Decembro de 2004 ás 12:59:31 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
escribía:
What sort of nonsense is that? What on earth are they trying to accomplish?
About what Debian seeks to accomplish with the Official Logo: a seal
or mark indicating quality.
Yes, but the more widely known
O Venres, 31 de Decembro de 2004 ás 13:12:38 -0800, Steve Langasek escribía:
If we're not doing anything that requires licensing the trademark, a
requirement in the trademark license to change the command names is
ignorable.
Well, using the trademark forces us to seek permission (a license)
O Venres, 15 de Outubro de 2004 ás 12:40:23 -0400, Raul Miller escribía:
Oops, I have just thought of a case where it isn't so, at least in Spain.
The Spanish trade mark law allows the owner of a trademark to prohibit its
removal from a product.
If we are prohibited from removing the name
O Venres, 15 de Outubro de 2004 ás 02:12:41 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía:
First of all, I Am Not A Lawyer, so don't sue me if your trial goes bad.
It's all your fault for believing me :-)
And now...
I think that trademarks are irrelevant to DFSG-freeness since if the
copyright license is
O Venres, 15 de Outubro de 2004 ás 17:50:29 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
I think that trademarks are irrelevant to DFSG-freeness since if the
Oops, I have just thought of a case where it isn't so, at least in Spain.
The Spanish trade mark law allows the owner of a trademark to prohibit its
O Mércores, 6 de Outubro de 2004 ás 04:24:31 -0700, Johan Walles escribía:
Also, since I'm really unsure about what the requirements actually are to
get into non-free, is the EULA forbidding re-distribution a show-stopper?
I guessed that as long as Debian was allowed to redistribute,
O Martes, 14 de Setembro de 2004 ás 22:18:46 +0200, Isaac Clerencia escribía:
I think this can be illegal (also team names?).
Yes, it falls under trade mark protection laws. Since team names and logos,
and players' names are big assets for their teams and national leagues (put
Beckam's name in
O Martes, 24 de Agosto de 2004 ás 14:54:22 +0900, Seo Sanghyeon escribía:
Since it is certainly licensed under GNU GPL, is it okay to go into
Debian main? What could This is covered under GPL, but only for
non-commercial use mean at all?
I'd guess that it's just the usual association
O Xoves, 12 de Agosto de 2004 ás 11:29:50 -0400, Michael Poole escribía:
* Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights
to my work than I had to his, are not Free. They are not compatible
with DFSG 3.
This is where you lose me. How is that incompatible with
O Venres, 16 de Xullo de 2004 ás 01:11:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri escribía:
Let's consider a program, released under a MIT/X11 license and linked
with OpenSSL. Some GPL'ed plugins (which are dlopen'ed at run time) are
distributed with the program.
Is distribution of this package a GPL violation?
O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 00:56:39 -0700, Sean Kellogg escribía:
back to B due to lack of communication facilities. The duty in question will
be discharged by the court under section 261 provided section 263 is
95% of the world population does not live in the US.
--
Tarrío
O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 15:19:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett escribía:
I'm also unconvinced by these examples. The first sounds like A free
software license should allow for small groups to avoid lawsuits while
breaking the law, and the GPL can damage a wide range of perfectly
legal
O Domingo, 4 de Xullo de 2004 ás 20:54:48 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía:
They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions.
... which are not Copyright or Intellectual Property laws, so Debian
would treat them in the same way it treats, for example, patents or
trademarks.
O Xoves, 10 de Xuño de 2004 ás 16:51:06 -0400, Michael Poole escribía:
Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution
under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions? Does the fact that
the restrictions are non-enforceable (at least in the US) enter
consideration?
I
O Martes, 18 de Maio de 2004 ás 09:16:25 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer escribía:
Free/non-free? (Only an academic interest, I did not use this driver
yet.)
Cronyx Tau-ISA driver
Well, if the source code is obfuscated, it is not really useful source code
for humans to modify or learn from; so it
O Martes, 11 de Maio de 2004 ás 13:09:12 -0400, Raul Miller escribía:
The GPL specifically disallows creation of copies with changes -- no
matter how functional -- which include restrictions on the rights of
other users of derivatives.
The GPL forbids distributing copies under a license
O Martes, 20 de Abril de 2004 ás 13:52:19 -0700, Jake Appelbaum escribía:
Let this be my first try at a license analysis in d-l :)
1. This software comes with no warrenty or promised features. If it
works for you - fine. It just comes AS-IS, which means as a bunch of
bits and bytes.
O Xoves, 29 de Xaneiro de 2004 ás 17:06:06 +0900, Kenshi Muto escribía:
Do you have any idea to cope with this situation? Or does anyone come
up with possible proposal so that Adobe can be persuaded? I
appreciate your help.
They claim that integrity of the CMap files is the main issue.
O Xoves, 23 de Outubro de 2003 ás 11:10:13 +0100, Colin Percival escribía:
1. You may do X
2. You may do Y
3. You may do Z
means you may take any, all, or none, of the actions X,Y,Z; likewise,
clauses 2, 3, and 4 each provide alternatives -- you may take actions
permitted under any of
O Xoves, 23 de Outubro de 2003 ás 15:50:38 +, Dylan Thurston escribía:
clause 3 vs. clause 4 issue: such a license is a grant of permission,
and if I grant you permission to do X if Y, and also grant permission
to do X if Z, then if you do either Y or Z, then you can do X. If one
Last
O Luns, 22 de Setembro de 2003 ás 10:57:37 -0400, Richard Stallman escribía:
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant
sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not.
If they were both removable and modifiable (so not invariant), they would
be
O Venres, 12 de Setembro de 2003 ás 11:44:34 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _SOFTWARE_ Guidelines?
Everything Debian distributes is software. After all, if it weren't, we
wouldn't be able to store it in a FTP server, transmit it via the Internet
or
O Domingo, 31 de Agosto de 2003 ás 13:51:13 -0700, Daniel Isacc Walker escribía:
[...]
under the GPL . What this means is that my software is automatically GPL'd
even though it has no GPL'd source in it. The GPL doesn't distinguish
[...]
incorporated directly into PHP that means that PHP
O Venres, 29 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:09:57 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
The DFSG itself does not meet the DFSG itself, if you think that no
text can be invariant.
I believe that you can make modified versions of the DFSG, as long as you
do not call the resulting document The Debian Free
O Venres, 29 de Agosto de 2003 ás 11:17:14 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
And according to the Debian Social Contract #4, Debian priorities are
[Debian] users and Free Software.
And Debian's users expect that everything they find in main will have a
license that meets certain criteria: the
O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 13:35:21 +0900, Fedor Zuev escribía:
Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
transformation from the source to the binary. All problems with
distribution and modification of documents is a legal, not technical
problems.
That doesn't
O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía:
How about the GPL v2? The source code for a work means the preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it; binary or object code
is anything that is not source. I don't see the problem in applying this
O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:23:36 +0300, Richard Braakman escribía:
But to make a new edition with some spelling errors fixed, you
definitely need the source.
Of course.
(I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that
translations and summaries are all you'll
O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:54:53 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía:
drawn to the condition You may not use technical measures to obstruct
or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute.
If make or were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to
O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía:
How about the GPL v2? The source code for a work means the preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it; binary or object code
is anything that is not source. I don't see the problem in applying this
O Xoves, 21 de Agosto de 2003 ás 00:09:54 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free
O Venres, 15 de Agosto de 2003 ás 12:49:21 +0200, Wouter Verhelst escribía:
we should at the very least avoid confusion by clarifying the intended
meaning of the word 'software' in the context of the text of the DFSG.
Well, in that context, software means everything you can store in a CD,
or
O Xoves, 14 de Agosto de 2003 ás 09:05:04 +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov escribía:
That was probably the intention, but the wording makes it unclear.
Sorry it was quite clear for me.
The GFDL, as it is worded now, would forbid me sending you a GPG-encrypted
mail containing a GFDL-licensed work,
O Luns, 4 de Agosto de 2003 ás 00:21:59 +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS escribía:
(L) Public Property: You may do anything you want with this work
provided that you inform all recipients that all derived works must
likewise be Public Property.
... with no additional restrictions.
--
O Venres, 22 de Novembro de 2002 ás 10:36:20 +0100, Luca - De Whiskey's - De
Vitis escribía:
I'm a bit confused by the possible interpretation of All other uses must
receive prior permission from the contest judges: this sentence neither
deny all other possible uses, nor it explicitly allows
To whom it may concern:
The following URL displays the text of the Directive, available in all 11
official languages of the EU (so you'll have no problem reading it :-))
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoclg=ennumdoc=31996L0009model=guichett
(All in
O Martes, 3 de Setembro de 2002 ás 10:59:45 -0500, Steve Langasek escribía:
The trademark is shown as registered in class 42:
After some digging, I found the applications: M2321780, M2321781, M2321782.
All three were submitted within one minute, by the same person. The first
one claims the
90 matches
Mail list logo
