On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:14:11PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I volunteered to Stefano to try to summarise and synthesise the
discussion about our inbound trademark licence policy.
Thanks Ian, it's much appreciated and very useful!
Rought consensus:
1. DFSG principles should apply.
2. No
Uoti Urpala writes (Re: Inbound trademark policy, round 3):
Ian Jackson wrote:
1. DFSG principles should apply.
IMO taking this as a starting point is completely wrong. DFSG guarantees
that incompetent and malicious people may freely modify the software.
You made this point at length
Ian Jackson wrote:
Uoti Urpala writes (Re: Inbound trademark policy, round 3):
Ian Jackson wrote:
1. DFSG principles should apply.
IMO taking this as a starting point is completely wrong. DFSG guarantees
that incompetent and malicious people may freely modify the software.
You
Ian Jackson wrote:
1. DFSG principles should apply.
IMO taking this as a starting point is completely wrong. DFSG guarantees
that incompetent and malicious people may freely modify the software.
For trademarks to have any meaning at all, distributing those modified
versions under the original
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
1. DFSG principles should apply.
IMO taking this as a starting point is completely wrong. DFSG
guarantees that incompetent and malicious people may freely modify
the software. For trademarks to have any meaning at all,
Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi writes:
DFSG allow a rename requirement; this means any trademark policy
whatsoever cannot violate DFSG as long as it allows distributing
unmodified sources and binaries, as you can always rename and then
ignore the trademark policy.
DFSG #4 is narrower
Russ Allbery wrote:
Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi writes:
DFSG allow a rename requirement; this means any trademark policy
whatsoever cannot violate DFSG as long as it allows distributing
unmodified sources and binaries, as you can always rename and then
ignore the trademark policy.
Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
DFSG #4 is narrower than the possible actions that could be required by
a trademark policy, at least in the way that we've normally interpreted
it, since we've not interpreted it as allowing the renaming to affect
functional
I volunteered to Stefano to try to summarise and synthesise the
discussion about our inbound trademark licence policy. Here is the
previous discussion head article:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00073.html
In this message I'm going mostly to write things from the point of
9 matches
Mail list logo
