On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> I think an exception should be made for Chromium too.
>
> No. Just no.
>
> The exceptions for Firefox need to stop NOW, i.e. no new ones should be
> granted and the ones that have already been granted repealed/discontin
Brandon Lozza wrote:
> I think an exception should be made for Chromium too.
No. Just no.
The exceptions for Firefox need to stop NOW, i.e. no new ones should be
granted and the ones that have already been granted repealed/discontinued.
Giving yet another package a free pass is going in the ent
Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> I don't see any conflict between Fedora's policy and Mozilla's policy.
> Both say that if you redistribute and change code you have to
> re-trademark. Those policies are fair and sensible. We can either
> patch and re-trademark Firefox or ship upstream. One of the val
Tomas Mraz wrote:
> The problem here really is that some "not so important?" projects are
> forced to accept all the restrictions and requirements and other "more
> important?" projects get a free pass from them. This is unfortunate and
> it does not improve the spirit of the package maintainers.
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:36 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> What are you guys going to do if someone does it anyway in a country
> where Redhat hasn't registered the Fedora trademark, or countries
> where another country already owns the Fedora trademark. Do you think
> spammers are going to host in
On 10/07/2010 08:36 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce anything
>> and call it 'Fedora'. Including something which doesn't fit into our
>> philosophy of freedom at all.
>
> What are you guys going to do if
I think an exception should be made for Chromium too. Having a more
secure browser would benefit the main repositories.
On 10/7/10, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> However, this here is Fedora, a project
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at
>> "Freedom" - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply
>> do not fit into this philosophy.
>
> If we don't protect t
Absolutely. I apologise if you took offence Toshi. My rant was in by no
means directed at you, but the subject at hand. Reading back it looks
like I have targeted you unfairly - not my intention.
On 10/07/2010 02:51 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Uh. I'm talking purely about bundled libs here w
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:00:50PM +1000, Brendan Jones wrote:
> On 10/07/2010 12:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > But I agree that having a strict requirement because it's felt that the
> > issues that are raised by allowing the requirement to be violated are very
> > problematic for us as a dist
On 10/07/2010 12:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> But I agree that having a strict requirement because it's felt that the
> issues that are raised by allowing the requirement to be violated are very
> problematic for us as a distro but then letting certain things bundle
> because they're more import
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:55:46PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> I give +1 to this. On the other hand Fedora also is (was?) a project
> where individual package maintainers had the biggest influence on what
> packages ship if they do not cross some fundamental legal limits. This
> changed in many ways
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
[snip]
> Of course. But there's in fact no disagreement, only looking at
> different aspects of the same thing.
>
> Why do you think the copying takes place? Because the companies have
> built a good reputation and brand, allowing them to incr
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> It's really pretty simple: we can only define goals and values and
> blahblah for 'the Fedora project' as long as we actually retain control
> over 'the Fedora project' (that's we as in the Fedora community, not Red
> Hat, BTW) and we can only do that if we c
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:25:27 -0500,
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III said:
> > Some have
> > also hoped that Mozilla would change with regard to bundled libraries in the
> > near future, but that seems pretty unlikely.
>
> I think that's an unfair statement; from what
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III said:
> Some have
> also hoped that Mozilla would change with regard to bundled libraries in the
> near future, but that seems pretty unlikely.
I think that's an unfair statement; from what I understand, Firefox has
already unbundled some libraries, and said they
On 10/06/2010 12:41 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:29:59 -0400,
> Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>>
>> The only possible room for debate that I see is that there is, in
>> Firefox, a potential conflict between our "ship upstream" and "don't
>> bundle libs" values. We have FE
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:29:59 -0400,
Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>
> The only possible room for debate that I see is that there is, in
> Firefox, a potential conflict between our "ship upstream" and "don't
> bundle libs" values. We have FESco to sort that out.
Those are the policies I was re
On 10/06/2010 12:12 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:59:08 -0400,
> Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>>
>> I have an idea... I'm going to create a fork of Fedora. I'm going to
>> fill it full of proprietary shit. I'm going to find the buggiest closed
>> drivers I can find and l
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:59:08 -0400,
Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>
> I have an idea... I'm going to create a fork of Fedora. I'm going to
> fill it full of proprietary shit. I'm going to find the buggiest closed
> drivers I can find and load them into the kernel. I'll also make it so
> that
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at
> "Freedom" - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply
> do not fit into this philosophy.
If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce any
On 10/06/2010 10:41 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
somebody else brand
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> >>> Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
> >>> some
On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>>> Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
>>> somebody else brand recognition.
>>
>> I disagree - trademarks exist to
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
> > somebody else brand recognition.
>
> I disagree - trademarks exist to protect the manufacturer from
> loosing profits be
25 matches
Mail list logo
