MJ Ray wrote:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
William Ballard wrote:
I don't know what to make of this statement:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm
[quote]
The main disadvantage of the deal with Google is that native language
versions of Firefox are not permitted to change the default search
engine to one that is more
Martin Schulze wrote:
I've sent this letter to the PHP group:
Dear authors,
we are a group of developers that build up an entire GNU/Linux system
based on the Linux kernel, GNU utilities and a lot of other software.
It is named Debian GNU/Linux
David Moreno Garza wrote:
I think Joey's mail is quite good since it is just stating facts. Truth
cannot be made up, specially on free software (and non-free also) legal
issues.
It took me a long time to learn this one, but it's true - it's not just
what you say, it's the way that you say it. I
Daniel Carrera wrote:
I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the
GPL for documentation:
1) The GPL language talks about software. How does that apply to something
that is not software?
With difficulty, IMO. Although, as someone points out, the GPL only uses
the
Don Armstrong wrote:
What about it? If the combination in question of the GPLed work and
your work is a derived work, then the GPL covers the work as a whole.
So is a WP a derived work of a dictionary? IMO, it's much harder to make
this sort of judgement when you're mixing code and non-code.
How
Kuno Woudt wrote:
* d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to
request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source
Henning Makholm wrote:
The word linking (or any of its forms) appears exactly once in the
GPL, and that is in a non-legal, non-technical aside comment:
| If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more
| useful to permit linking proprietary applications
| with the library. If
MJ Ray wrote:
I had hoped that a Moz Found rep would tell us we've missed some
obvious reason this doesn't hurt debian, but not yet.
With regard to the six months requirement, does it help to point out
that CVS and other source control systems are Electronic Distribution
Mechanisms? Therefore,
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Do you know whether the NSS implementation is being certified at
source code level (a very unusual arrangement) using the sort of
maneuvers mentioned in the Linux Journal article on DMLSS?
I'm not able to say - it's not my area. If you are interested,
Branden,
As I hope you've been made aware (a kind friend having texted me about
the situation), I've spent the last week doing a Christian camp in
France (http://www.interaction-france.org) with no net access of any
kind. So I've been unable to deal with the unfortunate situation
regarding
The recent thread about Mozilla and trademarks on debian-legal has been
drawn to my attention. For those who don't know me, I'm Gerv, and I'm
currently the first point of contact for trademark and copyright
licensing issues at Mozilla.
I have to say that Alex's original summary of our
Alexander Sack wrote:
I suggest that we make a standard policy that works for all and not for
debian only. Otherwise, I feel that there are problems with dfsg, since
we cannot grant the same rights to our users, that you granted us. But,
here I might be wrong and maybe others want to elaborate
Joel Aelwyn wrote:
First, having such a trademark license establishes the Mozilla project
as an arbiter of package quality for a Debian package.
Indeed. With all the caveats that you state, then yes, when it comes
down to it, it does. It has to, in order for us to claim that we're
Dave Harding wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 12:59:08AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
Mind you, I don't think I'd necessarily have an issue with To use
this trademark, you must run a publically reviewable bug tracking
system and implement some form of version management (I
Francesco Poli wrote:
Second option would require the Debian package maintainer to dig into
the source and play seek destroy with all cases in which the work is
referenced as Mozilla {thunderbird|firefox} or in which the official
logo is used...
This seems a bit more than requiring a name
Francesco Poli wrote:
tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
sbird - ... derived from Mozilla Sunbird
moz - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
For what it's worth (and without making any judgement on the legal
weight
Josh Triplett wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
But isn't the full suite going to be discontinued once the
thermodynamically challenged predator and its stormy avian cousin
reach maturity anyway?
As I understand it, not anymore: there are enough third parties building
upon Seamonkey (the suite)
Francesco Poli wrote:
If these names are unacceptable, I begin to be concerned that users
won't be able to find the right packages or type the right shell
commands, without having to remember weird mutant names from outer
space... :-(
Don't you feel that many users will use that really cool
Francesco Poli wrote:
Yes, but is requiring a global replacing of trademarked strings and
images acceptable?
I mean: it seems that Mozilla is requiring us
* either to comply with strict modification constraints
Not so strict, really. Certainly not to the level of preventing security
Francesco Poli wrote:
Exactly.
DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
and not to downstream recipients as well.
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an important
Michael K. Edwards 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. The name you
use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
It can, especially in the case of a web browser; consider web
Brian Masinick wrote:
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in
order to
not infringe their trademarks.
I think plenty of dialog with Mozilla is a good idea. If they don't
like the
way we package Thunderbird or any of the other packages,
I should point out
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If not, what procedure would be needed to make the software DFSG-free?
I'm going to guess clean-room rewrite of all of the documentation, and
of any code that could be affected?
Not *quite*. But close.
(1) Every piece of code must be audited to determine the
MJ Ray wrote:
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
MJ Ray wrote:
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 default build removes
Don Armstrong wrote:
I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
release and dealing with all of the problems that that would cause for
the
Alexander Sack wrote:
In contrast, the package you want us to distribute is not distributed by
upstream. You distribute something that is restricted by active
trademark enforcement, which IMHO is non-free, because a trademark
policy is just another way to restrict freedom.
I don't think it's
Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm no expert in fund-raising strategies: could you please explain what
you mean?
How can MoFo raise funds by preventing other people from calling
Mozilla Firefox a distributed modified version of its XUL-based web
browser?
One example is that we have a deal with Google
MJ Ray wrote:
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
MJ Ray wrote:
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
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
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
Steve Langasek wrote:
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
currently claim.
I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not true. In my copious
spare time, I'm attempting to complete the Mozilla
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Would it be out of place to ask what code, exactly, is involved?
Not at all, no. As the licensing state of the tree is determined by a
script, and because I haven't run it in the past few weeks, I can't tell
you exactly offhand. I will attempt to take up the
Lewis Jardine wrote:
Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
It seams the only human possible solution is to ask RSA to change their
licence. I guess the Mozilla foundation could help if they care about
licencing issues.
Any idea of how we should contact Mozilla and RSA? I am really _not_ a
diplomatic guy :-)
Michael Poole wrote:
The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer
case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it?
I agree with Daniel that it would be sensible to permit this, and I've
actually made this suggestion already on their rather cool commenting
webtool. Here's the
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So here it is:
7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
receive copies of the work.
I like this, together with Arnoud's suggestions. But Walter is right;
the
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
or misfeatures in the font?
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all
of satisfying this for the voicemail, toll booth, etc. cases.
(Though the thought of someone corking up a toll booth lane on a busy
interstate to plug in a USB pen drive and download its source is
Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that this is good news anyway.
Thanks to Gervase Markham for dealing with this (big) issue!
You are welcome :-) Perhaps now I can get back to hacking :-)
Gerv
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
MJ Ray wrote:
It's the comment system which is incapable, not the people.
IMO there was no good reason to design some people out of it.
If it's possible to provide the same level of function with an interface
that works in more browsers, great - and I believe they did do that as
time went on,
Daniel Leidert wrote:
I'm not sure of any of these licenses is DFSG-free. AFAIK the CC
licenses are considered non-free and I'm concerned about the OSSAL too
(that forbids linking against GPLed libraries). And the exceptions don't
seem to allow Debian to link against GPLed libraries.
Can you
Simon Josefsson wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments
A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how
those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a
DFSG-free licence (presumably in parallel to the IETF one) - perhaps
some sample
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the
license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction.
It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list
for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue,
The Python Software Foundation trademark policy[0] says the following:
# Use of the word Python when redistributing the Python programming
language as part of a freely distributed application -- Allowed. If the
standard version of the Python programming language is modified, this
should be
Francesco Poli wrote:
I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names
can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the
Font Software.
Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my
concerns go away?
There is no such clause.
Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve
an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it, Debian uses the name Python to refer to its Python
implementation and the name `python' for the executable. Does this mean
that all commercial distributors of Debian need to get permission from
the PSF, or alter
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] This is a complete, standalone,
unqualified sentence, and therefore applies to all commercial
distribution, including people selling Debian CDs.
Well, it applies to all commercial distribution which uses the
Python trademark
MJ Ray wrote:
If I purchase Debian CDs and type python, or I do man python and
read all about the interpreter which I can invoke by typing python
which interprets the Python programming language, or I install
python-doc and read some more, isn't that use of the trademark?
What trade is
MJ Ray wrote:
Passing off is a little different, so I don't want to confuse that
with trademarks.
That's not something I know much about; a reference on the difference
would be appreciated if you have one.
How is Python being used by the distributor to label the shipped
version of CPython
Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to previous
drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in GPLv2... :-(
It's an inconvenience and border-line with respect to freeness.
Actually this clause restricts how I can modify what an
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
I can't see any judge with a decent grasp of English or the notion of
a legal notice or author attribution permitting the attachment of
the GNU Manifesto to a work under this clause. Can you give a
concrete
Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
I had been using the GPL for some years without fully understanding
its implications. Recently, I spent some time thinking about my
ethical beliefs regarding free software and discovered that I prefer
something like Creative Commons' by-sa (attribution + share-alike)
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, *when* I want a copyleft, I want one that *actually works*...
Exemptions for specific incompatible licenses should be left out of the
license text (so that who wants them can add them as additional
permissions).
*When* I choose the GNU GPL, I want to prevent my code
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was using proprietary in what I thought was its fairly common meaning,
i.e.
I don't know if this conversation is supposed to happen elsewhere, or
perhaps with a smaller CC list, but:
Francesco Poli wrote:
EPSG dataset
Terms of use, revised 22/03/2007 (proposed - not adopted!)
The EPSG geodetic parameter dataset is owned jointly and severally by
the members of the
Francesco Poli wrote:
Bad: no clear definition of remote users
The term user is not clearly defined.
Is your point that it is impossible to clearly define, or do you have
alternative language?
Do you know how the corresponding clause in the current Affero license
has historically
Francesco Poli wrote:
The restriction in the GPL is about the act of conveying copies of the
work.
The restriction in the AGPL is about *using* the modified work: there's
a cost associated with *use*...
But surely the entire point in question is whether presenting the UI to
someone across the
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Francesco... as I've said on this list before, IANAL is not a sufficient
disclaimer. Nor is saying this is not legal advice. There are laws,
criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not
certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction the
Steve Langasek wrote:
WTF, seriously? Reading this makes me want to go write some new code,
license it under the GPLv3 with some random and arbitrary prohibition, and
watch someone at the FSF try to argue that the additional restriction has no
legal force.
Not non-free, just incredibly goofy;
Steve Langasek wrote:
If I go to the effort of writing
This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the
prohibition in
Iain Nicol wrote:
If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user
interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not.
My
Steve Langasek wrote:
Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
people on debian-legal as a whole. Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than
his local laws.
If this were true, the logical
Adam Borowski wrote:
Can we dub GPLv3 GPL with the advertising clause then?
I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't
see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical.
And the
advertising clause is a lot, lot worse than for 4-clause BSD one --
Adam Borowski wrote:
The only difference is that it's not the author of the software who is being
advertised, but GPL and FSF position.
This seems an unfairly perjorative way of saying the list of rights the
user acquires with the software. This clause is not about making the
GNU Manifesto
Adam Borowski wrote:
Ok, let's scrap the high-tech detector with enough resolution to tell you're
moving your hand and take a more realistic one which can just tell that
you're sitting at the computer -vs- being somewhere else in the room -vs-
the room being empty. The voice can tell me a lot
Steve Langasek wrote:
Whatever happened to the First Amendment?
Do you also count on First Amendment protection against charges of libel,
slander, and false advertising?
That's a false analogy. All of the things in your list are done with
intent to mislead. In the examples we are
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
And as I see it, if I say My program is licenced under GPLv3 with the
following exceptions ..., if the user ignores the exception, they have
broken the terms I set for them to use the program, and the GPL doesn't
apply, so they can't take advantage of the clause
Ben Finney wrote:
No. This is no more true than to say that, because the GPL, BSD, and
Artistic licenses accompany software in Debian, that those licenses
apply to all of that software.
The only thing you've clearly done is distribute a license text and a
CD. The license text doesn't apply as
Kern Sibbald wrote:
2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I
don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula
compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me
to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3
Francesco Poli wrote:
In the case of the AfferoGPLv3, I am *not* already distributing
software.
But you are distributing some sort of data - otherwise the person using
the software would not be interacting with it. Interaction requires
exchange of data.
I modified the application and simply
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
As the AGPLv3 will force you, from the United States, to offer
cryptographic software for export in the event that you modify server
software using it and (make that software available for interaction
over a network), it is forcing you to violate US law.
Making
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
It's not the users of the software, it's the users of services run by
the software.
But in today's world, that's no longer a meaningful distinction.
It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I
interacted with the services provided by that software
MJ Ray wrote:
1. Along similar lines, one question I keep returning to is
Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my
expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the
DFSG?
It doesn't require you to give them a copy. It requires you to offer
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test?
The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source
distribution passes the test, but only that it's possible to pass the test.
The life of a dissident is a complicated and difficult
On 13/03/10 08:18, Paul Wise wrote:
Is there the perception that the MPL is still nessecary? I'm wondering
what features of the current/future MPL are desired and are not
satisfied by the LGPL / GPL dual licensing combination or could be
The scope of the copyleft in the MPL (file-level) is
On 13/03/10 21:52, Francesco Poli wrote:
However, the license text to be commented is *not* identical to the
official text of the MPL version 1.1 [2].
[1] http://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/
[2] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt (as far as I know)
The differences (as shown by
On 15/03/10 10:52, Gervase Markham wrote:
I will enquire as to what happened, and hopefully get the
draft-for-comment corrected.
https://mpl.co-ment.com/text/NMccndsidpP/view/?comment_id_key=JeG3XyUGGI7
Gerv
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
Hi, all-
I'm happy to announce the release of MPL 2 Release Candidate 1 - the
text that we hope will become MPL 2.0 and serve the open source
community well for the next decade (or three). The plain text of the
license is here:
http://mpl.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/MPL-RC1.txt (other
On 26/08/11 23:09, Ben Finney wrote:
Bear in mind that the Debian Free Software Guidelines don't allow a work
into Debian if the license is special to Debian. See DFSG §8:
8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
On 29/08/11 15:18, Ben Finney wrote:
then effectively Debian policy is that no trademarks may appear
anywhere in Debian. The purpose of trademarks in law is as a
determinant of origin.
What in DFSG §8 (or in my explanation of it) makes this infeasible, in
your view?
If you understand DFSG
On 05/01/12 23:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 1.5(b) fails to solve existing compatibility headaches.
It disables the default (L)GPL compatibility (caused by clause 3.3) for
those works that were previously incompatible because they were only
licensed under the MPL v1.1 (or earlier). This
On 13/01/12 21:31, Francesco Poli wrote:
Nonetheless, all the existing GPL-incompatibilities due to the MPL
v1.1, including the *unintentional* ones, won't be solved, except for
the cases where the copyright holders may be tracked down, and convinced
to explicitly enable the compatibility:
On 25/11/12 22:08, Gary Wilson wrote:
Thank you very much. Your assistance is greatly appreciated
If your son is interested in how it can be that there exists a complete
operating system and thousands of pieces of software which are freely
available for him to use without restriction and
On 22/12/12 12:33, Vaibhav Niku wrote:
One solution to the problem is to get the source code, delete the
lines which insert the copyright notice (“modify the code”), compile
the code, and use this. This is legal as the code is released under
GPL and GPL allows modifications. (You could release
On 27/10/13 17:19, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Since BSD-4-clause is not compatible with GPL do I understand it
correctly that they basically made Berkeley DB 6.0.20 indistributable by
us? Or am I missing something about mixing BSD-4-clause and AGPLv3?
It depends on who the acknowledged party is. If
94 matches
Mail list logo
