On 30 May 2017 at 22:08, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 21:49:19 +1000
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> Here's an alternate wording for the README that would focus on those
>> considerations without explicitly asking folks not to use the theme:
>>
>> "Note that when adopting this theme, y
On Tue, 30 May 2017 21:49:19 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Here's an alternate wording for the README that would focus on those
> considerations without explicitly asking folks not to use the theme:
>
> "Note that when adopting this theme, you're also borrowing an element
> of the trust and cred
On 30.05.2017 13:49, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Here's an alternate wording for the README that would focus on those
> considerations without explicitly asking folks not to use the theme:
>
> "Note that when adopting this theme, you're also borrowing an element
> of the trust and credibility establishe
On 29 May 2017 at 01:15, David Mertz wrote:
> I agree with MAL and have also been on the Trademarks Committee for 8-9
> years. Protecting an actual Mark like the logo is fine, as painful as it is
> to someone's say no to an attractive derived logo. But trying to protect a
> look-and-feel is way to
This is a side issue, do I don't want to go too long with it. But *NO* we
can't always give permission. The problem isn't how permissive PSF might
like to be in the abstract, but trademark law itself. Trademark is "enforce
it or lose it" ... Even passively allowing dilutive derivatives would cause
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
In my role as PSF TM committee member, it's often painful to have to
tell community members that they cannot use e.g. really nice looking
variants of the Python logo for their projects. Let's not add more
pain.
But it's always within the PSF's power to give that community
m
I agree with MAL and have also been on the Trademarks Committee for 8-9
years. Protecting an actual Mark like the logo is fine, as painful as it is
to someone's say no to an attractive derived logo. But trying to protect a
look-and-feel is way too far down the path of evil (it's what some
proprieta
I'm -1 on going down the suggested route of Apple et al. for an
open source language.
We don't need more trademarks to "protect" ourselves against
fellow open source projects.
I see this whole trademark business that OSS projects are getting
into in recent years in a more and more critical light.
On Sat, 27 May 2017 14:26:54 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Thoughts? Should we stick with pypa-theme as the name? Switch to
> psf-docs-theme? Publish both, with pypa-theme adding PyPA specific
> elements to a more general psf-docs-theme?
>
[...]
>
> Future requests to use the theme (beyond CPyt
On 28 May 2017 at 06:54, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Are you also going to stop others from using the psf theme?
I think it would definitely make sense to discourage the use of this
particular theme for projects that aren't relatively directly
affiliated with the PSF - there are plenty of other pip
Are you also going to stop others from using the psf theme?
On May 27, 2017 11:35, "Brett Cannon" wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2017 at 21:28 Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Over on https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/
>> pull/305#issuecomment-304169735
>> we're looking t
On Fri, 26 May 2017 at 21:28 Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Over on
> https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/pull/305#issuecomment-304169735
> we're looking to update the theming of packaging.python.org to match
> that of the language documentation at docs.python.org.
>
> Doing
Hi folks,
Over on
https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/pull/305#issuecomment-304169735
we're looking to update the theming of packaging.python.org to match
that of the language documentation at docs.python.org.
Doing that would also entail updating the documentation of the
individ
13 matches
Mail list logo
