Re: jabber.gnome.org's future
Hi Shaun, It's certainly recognized that shutting down jabber.gnome.org would cause pain for people who are using it. But in the end, system administration resources are limited, and we have to balance that against the costs to us to provide an open-ended promise to continue running the service indefinitely. With email, we have to have a functioning email server for gnome.org, anyways and all we provide on top of that is automated aliases. The incremental security and maintenance burden of gnome.org email addresses is minimal. With XMPP, on the other hand, we have a complete service which is running *only* to provide XMPP service to on the order of a dozen people. I don't think this is a strategic use of our resources. The only way it would make sense to me is if we had some expectation that over time that the number of users would grow to a significant fraction of the GNOME membership. - Owen On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 10:59 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 13:45 +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: Howdy guys, as you may know we're currently hosting an openfire istance (jabber server) on one of our machines, I'm currently migrating a good bunch of services and reviewing all the services we host in case they need an upgrade or just a little maintenance. I have a few questions I would like to ask to our Foundation members (jabber.gnome.org is actually a service meant for @gnome.org addresses) about our jabber service: 1. have you ever used jabber.gnome.org? 2. is it a service you find useful? I use it every single day. It is my primary IM account. 3. do you think we should discontinue it? if yes, why? if not, why? No. For the same reason I don't think I should lose my @gnome.org email address. It's part of my digital identity. 4. what are the major issues you had with it and you would like to see fixed? (apart the self-signed SSL certificate, which will be fixed soon) For some reason, you can't use the default server settings. I have to put Server: jabber.gnome.org, Port: 5223, and check Use old SSL in Empathy to make it work. Also, the password is tied to the Mango password, which is some autogenerated nonsense I can never remember. Good thing we have a keyring in GNOME, but it's a hassle when setting up a new machine. -- Shaun ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Some notes on GNOME Shell
The secret master plan Boy do I wish I had a secret master plan tucked in a drawer somewhere! It would be really useful To the extent we have a master plan, it's in two documents that everybody has seen: http://www.gnome.org/~mccann/shell/design/GNOME_Shell-20091114.pdf http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/RoadmapTwoThirtyOne The Red Hat cabal The practical structure of the GNOME Shell project dual (benevolent) dictatorship - I'm the dictator for technical decisions, Jon is the dictator for design decisions. That's pretty much like every other GNOME module - someone has to make the decision in the end, and a lot of decisions are pretty much arbitrary. Are we going to depend on the development version of glib and GSettings for 2.31.3 or are we going to wait until 2.31.4? For more interesting decisions, influence is strictly a function of involvement. Creating patches, talking to us on IRC, coming up with solutions for problems we are having, and so forth. If you are doing work, you'll have a say. On the technical side, there are non-Red-Hatters with enormous influence because they are doing enormous amounts of work. As of yet, the number of people with that influence on the design side is small. But that's nothing fundamental - we would certainly welcome more help with open arms. (What has been a challenge is figuring out how to create the stepping stones to getting involved *productively* in design; we have tons of people coming up with ideas. But you can't implement 50 conflicting ideas.) A corporate driven project The defining characteristic of a corporate driven project is that what gets accepted or what doesn't is a factor of what's good for the corporation. I don't see that this is the case for GNOME Shell. The goal of Red Hat's involvement in the shell is a really great *upstream* version of GNOME. GNOME 3 with a great user interface out of the box. And we've always tried to make this a great collaboration between all the GNOME contributors including all the companies. That's the way it began at the GNOME design hackfest in 2008, and if since then certain companies have gone off and done their own thing, that's not because we haven't solicited their help. GNOME Shell is on the other hand a _driven_ project. We've always had an end-goal of GNOME 3; we haven't generally wanted to accept patches just because they exist. And it has a heavy review process. We do a *lot* of code review. I think that pays off in quality code and having a culture where the contributors are on the same page. But it does mean that sometimes patches languish waiting for review - code review is probably 30-40% of the work of the project. In other words, if you can't get a patch into GNOME Shell quickly, that doesn't mean that the man (or Red Hat) has it against you. (That being said, the unreviewed queue has typically been around 10-20 unreviewed patches while hundreds of patches do go in each month.) Zeitgeist Since at least last fall it's been very clear what the requirements are for Zeitgeist as part of GNOME 3. Not a framework that you can build multiple ideas on top of. Not something that's going to work on multiple desktop environments. Not an activity journal that is disconnected from the rest of the GNOME experience. For Zeitgeist to be part of the GNOME 3 experience, the GNOME 3 experience with files had to be defined. And then you can consider how a daemon like Zeitgeist might be a useful tool for building that. I feel pretty terrible that we weren't able to incorporate the work that Siegfried Gevatter did last summer as part of a the SOC. But in the end, without a UI plan, it was just extra complexity without a point for users we had to come up with the time to create a UI plan. That didn't happen until a few months ago, while it should have happened *before* the SOC project started. Our fault. Technical boards The day we have technical boards that are saying what can and can't go into individual modules is the day we lose GNOME. Technical decisions need to be made by the people that have a stake in the issue. Not by people who come in, spend an hour hearing about something for the first time, and then lay down the law. GNOME works to the extent that its members talk together; bring people over to their positions; actively work to create a consensus. If you have a valid point, you will be able to convince people of it. If we have massive disagreements going on between module maintainers (something I haven't seen for many years), there may be need for mediation - for getting people to talk. But that needs to be strictly *non-technical* mediation. And can be handled by the release team or the Foundation board as necessary. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: I believe we can state it this way ... The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe, promote, use and write free software. We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies because we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a free desktop (or mobile interface) accessible to everyone. Sometimes those companies are proprietary software companies and while we hope that they move closer to free software in the future (and that we are helping them do so with the use of GNOME), we are delighted that they have chosen to use GNOME and will help them and their customers. This is a great, positive way of saying things that I consider to reflect the long-standing views of the GNOME community and is inclusive of the diversity of opinions that we have. Continuing a negatively framed debate like does the GNOME community believe that proprietary software is immoral is not helpful. I hope Lefty will take a step back and consider whether his survey actually has a real purpose in guiding the activity of the GNOME project. We have a lot of software to write, we have a lot of users to get our message to. I think there's a responsibility on all of us, and especially those who could be seen (by virtue of holding a position on a GNOME board) as representing GNOME, not to get sidetracked into argument for the sake of argument. - Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:15 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, David Schlesinger le...@shugendo.org wrote: Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also endorses. This is actually an excellent, and an important, point. Having poked around a little bit, I think this needs to be stated more strongly. We certainly have software in GNOME that's being made available under the Apache license. (The keyring is an example a little Google'ing turned up...) With respect to the v2 GPLand we still don't accept v3 GPL software as GNOME components, last I heardsoftware under the Apache license can't be reasonably described as free software, since it is incompatible with what is uncontrovertibly a free software license, i.e. the v2 GPL. It is, regardless, unequivocally open source software. It's practically speaking a problem if GNOME ships any code under a GPL incompatible license. This is something that should be red-flagged by the release team, because it will cause problems in effectively sharing and moving code between GNOME components. But it has very little to do with Free Software vs. Open Source Software. E.g. the FSF page on licensing has a section called: GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Including the Apache license. Given this, we cannot legitimately simply use the term free software to describe what's included under the GNOME umbrella. Doing so would exclude any software which is licensed under terms which the FSF says are incompatible with the GPL. GNOME has strong historical ties to the Free Software movement and believes in Free Software/Open Source Software as a positive societal good, and not just a convenient business strategy. For this reason, I think Free Software should be our preferred term. There are of course, audiences for which Free Software can be a confusing and unfamiliar term and in communicating with these audiences we may want to refer to Open Source Software additionally or even alternatively. - Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:31 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however, your choice to focus on it, and I don't understand what you are trying to achieve by doing that. - Are you trying to argue down RMS? I've certainly never seen that work in 15 years. [ I apologize if this implies any disrespect to RMS; if I was writing for public consumption, I would certainly have added that I've known RMS to be very reasonable when presented with new information or a strong argument about how some goal should be accomplished. He just doesn't compromise on his principles. It's always good to be reminded never to say anything in private email that you would phrase differently in public, since these mistakes do happen. :-) ] [...] By posting something on foundation-list, I feel that you are pretty explicitly saying it is related to GNOME. I can't help how you feel, Owen. I _can_ assure that its only relation to GNOME is that members of GNOME are most certainly members of the target audience I'm seeking. [...] I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_, Owen...? It's very hard not to take the survey as a continuation of the recent discussions on this list, which I felt at the time to be highly unproductive. It was long and acrimonious discussion largely about changes to planet.gnome.org policy that hadn't actually been proposed. I don't think I'm at all alone in taking the survey that way. The purpose of the survey seems to be to collect data to support (or possibly refute) your position. I also feel that the survey is quite flawed, and after going through most of it decided not to submit my answers because by submitting it I would be misrepresenting my opinion on proprietary software. Imagine that somebody wrote an article based on the results of your survey. The results would show that: Many FOSS developers don't consider proprietary software immoral, or illegitimate. Many FOSS developers sometimes use proprietary software. And in fact I'd up in both of those categories. And somebody reading the article would get the impression that FOSS developers don't think there is a moral dimension to Free Software. Yet I strongly believe: - That picking Free Software over proprietary software is the right thing to do even when there is a cost to me such as less functionality. - That a world where a task can't be done with Free Software is a worse world. And that wouldn't be represented at all. In that way, it felt a bit like the sort of surveys you see taken by political action groups with an agenda. That may well not have been your intent - but I think we have to be aware that survey construction is hard, and the very construction of a survey and reporting of survey results is not a neutral activity; it's a form of public relations. And none of us can escape the fact that by being a GNOME member, by speaking on GNOME forums like foundation-list and planet.gnome.org, and by being part of GNOME bodies, whether the sysadmin team, or the advisory board, we speak as part of GNOME. That doesn't mean self-censorship, but it does mean that we have to watch what sort of conversation we are part of, and whether they are productive, or entertaining at the cost of being damaging to GNOME's image. Here, if there are specific changes that you think should be made to GNOME's policies, I think those should be the things we should be discussing, rather than abstract attitudes toward proprietary software. - Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Changes to the System Adminstration Team
GNOME Foundation members, We'd like to announce a formal system administration team. GNOME has long had an informal sysadmin team that has managed the gnome.org services. Putting this team on a more formal basis similar to the GNOME Release Team will allow us to involve and recognize contributors more effectively, and better coordinate with other parts of the GNOME project. The team will be coordinated by a paid part-time system administrator. John Carr has kindly offered to act as a coordinator to get the team going on an interim basis and Codethink is generously donating his time. However, we need your help to make this work long term. In order to continue our current community plans and hire a system administrator, we'd like to raise $50,000 through Friends of GNOME. Thanks to our generous community members we have already received over $5,000 this year. In addition, Google has put in $5,000 and Canonical has offered to match the next $10,000. So we are 40% of the way there already! Now we need your help! Please show your support for the GNOME project and give to http://www.gnome.org/friends. The GNOME Sysadmin Team, Board of Directors, and Board of Advisers About the System Administration Team The system administration team is responsible for setting up new services, maintenance and development of existing services, and for keeping an eye on server logs, the sysadmin and infrastructure mailing lists, and the request tracker queues. The team general looks after the day-to-day administrative requirements of the GNOME servers. The team is led by the Systems Administration Coordinator. If we raise sufficient funding, the GNOME Foundation will make this a part-time paid position. Responsibilities of the coordinator include: * Scheduling regular IRC meetings and setting the agenda for those meetings * Tracking the status of routine sysadmin tasks and making sure that there are sufficient resources on the team to accomplish them * Reporting at regular intervals to the GNOME board and foundation membership * Maintaining a roadmap of infrastructure enhancements * Making sure volunteers have the permissions needed to accomplish their tasks Responsibilities of team members include: * Attending the IRC meetings * Regularly spending time handling routine tasks * Volunteering for infrastructure development projects as needed For more information please see http://live.gnome.org/SysadminTeam. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
IRC huddle for Boston summit today
I want to do a quick IRC meeting about the GNOME summit today Date: Today, Thu Oct 4 Time: 2:00pm US/Eastern, 18:00 UTC Place: irc.gnome.org:#boston Agenda: * Needed supplies and equipment * Fixed schedule elements (opening sessions / closing sessions, etc) * Missing information on the wiki - Owen [ Apologies for wide distribution, late notice, and times that aren't suitable for everybody that might be interested. ] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 07:06 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: While we have been discussing this issue, we also discovered that many of the source files in control center did not have copyright statements and those that did were probably out of date and did not include the names of all the contributors. Could the foundation advise us on what needs to be done and how we could rectify the situation as quickly as possible. You probably don't *need* to do anything- the files are copyrighted by the authors whether there is a copyright statement or not. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to do a CVS history on the files in question and add names and appropriate (L)GPL headers to the files. Of course, it's not always easy to map from the person doing the check-in to the appropriate copyright statement. The same contributor might have worked for multiple different companies over the years and at other times been doing work on their own. - Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: trademarks [was Re: Minutes of the Board meeting 2006/Feb/15]
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 09:41 -0500, Dominic Lachowicz wrote: On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps - this has been discussed on the Board for years. As I understand it, the guidance from legal consultations so far has not helped sketch out such a guideline, and I was under the impression that there is little, if any, legal precedent for such implicit licensing. If we want to avoid the implicitness bit, perhaps we could have some sort of secure webapp that clearly defines the TOCs of such a TM policy, delineating the rights and limitations one has when using the Foundation's marks. By filling in your relevant information and clicking accept, an explicit contract between the foundation and you - the licensee - has been formed. The licensee is bound by the contract, and may use the TMs in a way that is consistent with said contract. The Foundation still gets to enforce and protect its mark, while still being fairly liberal with who gets to use it. Under such a policy, no warm-bodies would be involved past the initial setup stages, unless people were found to be infringing the TM or violating the TOCs of the contract. The user-group agreement is currently done as an electronic click-through. http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/usergroup/ I'm not sure that going over https would make it any more legally binding... Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: trademarks [was Re: Minutes of the Board meeting 2006/Feb/15]
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 09:41 -0500, Dominic Lachowicz wrote: On 2/28/06, Owen Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure that going over https would make it any more legally binding... If I said https, then I'd agree with you, but I didn't. I said secure, but perhaps that was the wrong word. The semantic I'm looking for is there is some way to verify that the submitter is who she says she is, in a legally binding sense. You know, more than just an accept button and some text fields that anyone can fill in with any values they like. Signatures are pretty funny things ... for a very large number of real-world important things, I can fax a signed document; presumably given an example of someone's signature it's not hard to create a very convincing looking fax with that signature. So, most of the time, a signature is, as far as I can tell, really an expression of intent on the part of the signer rather than a security mechanism. The sign by retyping your name in slashes thing on that web page, as corny as it may seem, is actually the recommendation of our lawyers. And while, as a computer person, I had trouble implementing that form with a straight face, I'm not sure that, say, a PGP signature of the submitter would have any more security validity... not even to discuss what courts would consider legally binding. PGP signatures have a bad problem with repudiation ... at any point I can claim that I accidentally revealed my private key two years ago, and that the signature could have been forged. To really get something secure, you need something equivalent to notarization or a signature guarantee where a trusted third party confirms your identity and countersigns the document. (And to fix the repudiation problem, that identity confirmation can't be automated by way of a PGP key.) If you think about from a different angle, what's the damage someone could do by submitting a forged form? If the user groups claims that they never signed the document, and thus aren't bound by the terms of the agreement, then they don't have the accompanying rights to use the trademark... So, in other words, while I intentionally said https instead of echoing your secure web app, my general feeling is that this isn't something that is really a matter of technology. Regards, Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting 2005 Sep 28
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 09:34 +0700, Ross Golder wrote: On พฤ., 2005-09-29 at 17:43 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Hi, Le jeudi 29 septembre 2005 à 10:56 -0400, Daniel Veillard a écrit : ACTION: Owen to add a section on things the foundation should do once it has the money - done it's on the foundation board page Is this private or public? :-) I can't find the page anywhere, but this might be private (which is totally understandable). Whatever happened to quoting a URL when referring to a web page? ;) This is actually on the board-only section of the web page, so the URL wouldn't have been that useful... I'll append the one item on that page now (which was the inspiration for adding the page) to this mail. (Does it make sense to have that page in the board space. Not sure, but in this case we were more making a note to ourself / future boards than trying to really come up with a comprehensive of stuff to do with money.) Regards, Owen * Pursue international registration of GNOME. Tim asked our lawyer about this: Follow-up with lawyer on Trademark: Unlike U.S. law, the law of most foreign jurisdictions provides few or no rights based on use of a trademark. Instead, the first to register a trademark generally owns the trademark for the same or related goods, no matter who has used the mark in that jurisdiction. This puts a premium on filing applications overseas. There are two options, other than individual country registrations - -1- European Union Community Trade Mark (“CTM”) registration, includes Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. -2- Madrid Protocol is now available to U.S. trademark owners and offers coordinated international trademark registrations administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, a U.N. agency based in Geneva, Switzerland. It is possible to include 60 countries, but is a newer and more expensive process. There is no deadline for filing under these systems. The projected cost was in the $3000-$4500 range. (Some cost needed to start - for searches, etc; additional cost to actually file.) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting 2005 Sep 28
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 17:43 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: ACTION: Owen check with the Election commitee for membership reminders It's definitely planned. We're trying to move the membership database away from a plain text file before doing this, though. And this is taking more time than expected (due to my lack of time). The reminders will be sent before mid-October, even if the new membership database is not ready. What we wanted to check was whether people would get a reminder early enough to allow them to deal with renewing before the elections. It sounds like you are on top of it; which is no surprise, really :-) Regards, Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [guadec-list] Re: Barcelona report
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 17:53 -0700, Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller At least one reason... there were a number of things that didn't work well in Stuttgart that need to be fixed. We once again had too many parallel sessions, too much stuff on the schedule, too many unanticipated sessions that had to be added in the weeks before the conference. What is the rationale to claim we had too many sessions at GUADEC in Stuttgart? I hear this repeated by some as an absolute truth, but I never seen anyone give any explanation for it. It comes from the belief that GUADEC should be less about preaching, more about participation. So the more talk sessions you have, the less BOF and hacktime sessions you have. Also as far as I know there wasn't any non-userday tracks that where consistently lacking participants, rather the opposite. Yes, they were very successful. We had an awesome line-up of talks! However, the view David is putting forward is not based on whether that model can be successful, it's whether we want to pursue that model at all... Is GUADEC meant to be a bunch of talks, or is it meant to be a whole lotta discussion and hacking? GUADEC is our only general-audience conference ... while I'm sure that we could have an awesome event where the GNOME hackers get together and talk and hack for a few days or longer, I don't think GUADEC is *just* about this. (The Boston GNOME summit, by contrast, is designed as purely a hacker get-together) Hacking sessions and detailed planning sessions aren't that interesting to a general audience ... even an intensely technical general audience. I think we should expect that with the strong GNOME user community in Spain we'll get even more people who are coming in, not interested in say, whether we should ship gnome-sm-proxy in the next release, but in getting a high-level picture of new and upcoming features and technologies. In learning about where to start developing with GNOME. In learning how to use GNOME in advanced ways. Giving talks to each other shouldn't be the way we do planning and technical development, but I think the core GNOME developers have an obligation to put on an event that really is exciting and interesting to the people that come. The data that we really should pull in here is the Survey's from this year's GUADEC. That we don't have them collated yet is my fault, largely. Having half the pile on my desktop I just went through 30 of them and looked at a few things: Balance of events: MoreLess Technical talks:15 1 Tutorials: 14 3 BOFS: 12 4 Unscheduled time: 15 4 You can draw your own conclusions from those numbers (We'll try hard to get a more complete tally soon), but I'm certainly not getting a feeling that there's support for changing the entire structure of GUADEC. In terms of the questions: 2. What talk at the conference did you enjoy most 3. What other talks did you attend and find useful The answers from those 30 questionaires (not everybody replied to the questions) were; Eclipse GCJ; Beagle, Gnome marketing Dreamworks; Shuttleworth Seth's talk with the condom tied with Jeff's 10x0; Keith Packard's, Cairo, Beagle, Software patents, lightning talks, Miguel's keynote, panel applets Topaz; Cairo, Beagle Lighting talks; Topaz, Cairo, Localized free desktop Robert Love on performance; Seth's opening talk Migration from Windows Keynotes and Eclipse; Lightning talks, how to contribute to GNOME, 101 things to know Freedesktop, GNOME-Java; Beagle GNOME meeting Cairo; x.org Flumotion, gnome-meeting; Anna's usability talk Dreamworks; LTSP, 101 things about GNOME Anna's usability; Flumotion Optimal GNOME programming; Shuttleworth's keynote Flumotion; Cairo Kudznetsky; 101 things about GNOME; Cairo, Eclipse Robert Love; 101 things, freedesktop, flumotion Ubuntu; Flumotion; 101 things about GNOME, Dreamworks, interop standards + OSS, Eclipse, advanced unit testing Software patents; Cairo, Topaz, Beagle, 101 things, Dreamworks Again, I'll let you draw your own conclusions; in general, though the broad range of stuff mentioned indicates to me that we aren't doing a bad job of programming GNOME and that removing talks in favor of exclusively BOFS and hackfests would be a mistake. Regards, Owen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Trademark license and useage guidelines
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 15:33 +, Alan Cox wrote: On Iau, 2005-03-24 at 22:50, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation wrote: Can you post questions to the WiKi for one-stop review? http://live.gnome.org/Trademark You may not edit this page - and UserPreferences seems to be missing a privacy policy... Would you be interested in being part of an effort to develop a privacy policy for GNOME? We can obviously through a few sentences onto the registration page for live.gnome.org, but that's just one of many places we collect information about people on the GNOME servers: bugzilla, the mailing lists, web server logs, etc. It seems like we should spend the effort to develop a single page that covers our policy in general. Regards, Owen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: using GNOME foot-logo for business card
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 10:51 -0800, Eddy Mulyono wrote: Dear GNOME foundation, I am a big fan of GNOME and the idea of reverting computers to be slaves of men (and not the other way around). I noticed that you're in charge of the most of the marketing pages in live.gnome.org. I want to include the gnome foot logo in my business cards. Is this OK? Is there anything I should pay attention to? The subject has never come up before. You certainly can't do it with permission from the GNOME Foundation. My opinion is that we shouldn't allow this for a *business* card for a commercial business. For, comparison, the guidelines for the foundation member email address forbid using it on Mail sent for commercial purposes. (http://developer.gnome.org/doc/policies/accounts/mail.html) I think putting a GNOME logo on a business card might look too much like an official endorsement by the GNOME project of your business. Something we might want to consider is a hacker card - create a standard template that any GNOME foundation member could use to create a business card for themselves, with the gnome logo and their gnome.org email address. (I've seen this from some of the Japanese projects, I think) What do people think? Owen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
