posted mailed
Cc:ed to dcca-discuss, since that's who needs to change this FAQ.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:01:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
snip
Look at the www.dccalliance.org website:
They need to be asked to change their FAQ to remove more trademark
infringements.
They need to be asked to change their FAQ to remove more trademark
infringements.
Careful. While I agree that all the changes you suggest are desireable, I
think that most are nominative and so do not infringe the
trademark.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To
John Hasler wrote:
They need to be asked to change their FAQ to remove more trademark
infringements.
Careful. While I agree that all the changes you suggest are desireable, I
think that most are nominative and so do not infringe the
trademark.
Well, the ones I mentioned later, perhaps.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:01:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Bart Schuller writes (Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation
status):
http://ianmurdock.com/?p=274
This is some kind of insulting joke.
Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.
I wonder
* Philip Hands:
Also, I was under the impression that recursive acronyms needed to be
witty, or at least close to being a pronounceable word, to count.
I suppose one could try pronouncing DCC as Dick to make it qualify ;-)
But it is, maybe unintentionally. DCC Alliance sounds like a closed
* Anthony Towns:
Look at the www.dccalliance.org website:
You missed The initial release of the Debian Common Core, expected
in the September time frame, will be based on Debian 3.1 (Sarge)
and certified to LSB. from the rather prominent Press link.
Unfortunately, It's still there. Maybe
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 10:16:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Unfortunately, It's still there. Maybe the lack of updates indicates
that the project is already dead, or something like that. Given their
business model (which does neither promote business nor free software),
this wouldn't be
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:01:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
This is some kind of insulting joke.
There's been two articles on newsforge about this now, both by David
Graham, who's the non-Debian guy on the SPI board (AIUI); the first,
summarising mails on this list:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:01:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Bart Schuller writes (Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation
status):
http://ianmurdock.com/?p=274
This is some kind of insulting joke.
Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.
Look at the www.dccalliance.org
Don Armstrong writes (Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA):
Branden Robinson (Debian Project Leader) has delegated to me the
authority to make a decision regarding the use of the Debian trademark
by the (as currently named) Debian Core Consortium Alliance. [...]
I'm sorry to
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 12:22:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
It is time for us to stop pussyfooting around. Asking DCCA
nicely hasn't resulted in them changing their name voluntarily.
http://ianmurdock.com/?p=274
They have, just maybe not in email. Or loud enough.
--
Bart.
--
To
Bart Schuller writes (Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation
status):
http://ianmurdock.com/?p=274
This is some kind of insulting joke.
Look at the www.dccalliance.org website:
* `common, standards-based core for Debian-based Linux distributions'
(including Debian, one might
On Monday 17 October 2005 13:22, Ian Jackson wrote:
| PS: Don's message that I quote above was posted to debian-private but
...
| The alternative, to paraphrase Don's words, seems silly.
That sounds like you can't draw a straight line, Ian.
What's wrong with
Stick to what you agreed to. ?
If a
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Perhaps Debian should revoke their permission to use the Debian Open
Use logo.
Non-free though the Open Use Logo licence is, it has no revocation
or termination clause (unlike the Official Use which they don't
seem to be using?). You may be able to find a way
14 matches
Mail list logo
