* Eric Dorland
| BTW, any Ubuntu developers care to comment? I'm interested in second
| opinions and how you guys are handling this situation? Did you accept
| an arrangement with MoFo?
We've been in touch with them and have currently renamed the
mozilla-firefox package to firefox. The same
Hi!
Wouter Verhelst [2005-06-15 1:29 +0200]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /usr/bin/awk
rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 21 2005-03-28 10:49 /usr/bin/awk -
/etc/alternatives/awk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /etc/alternatives/awk
rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 13 2005-03-28 13:22 /etc/alternatives/awk -
We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop
Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to
Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian?
What about Galeon and the others Gecko-based browsers ?
Non issue.
Nearly all
* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050614 23:41]:
I do not believe that this makes it non-free, but I encourage the
ftpmasters to investigate if our infrastructure can support such a
license.
[...]
Anyway, this particular case would put an unacceptable burden on our
I didn't see anyone proposing prelinking so far. I've seen rumors
that program start time for some programs decrease a lot if prelinking
is enabled. It would be nice if we could speed up the login time, or
for example the openoffice start time. Is prelinking the way to go?
Should it be enabled
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 08:59:16AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Hello,
I am attempting to upgrade a powerpc based system to sarge. It was
previously on testing, but hasn't been updated for months.
Then again, maybe the entire archive *is* corrupt!
Failed to fetch
El Miércoles 15 Junio 2005 03:00, Eric Dorland escribió:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the priorities
of our users and free software...
And where do we strike that balance in this case? I think gaining more
freedom for
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Their* trademark policy. Maybe the emphasis should have been there in
the first place.
Do you know the history of the Adamantix project?
Yes.
It's a Debian derivative which was called 'TrustedDebian' at first.
I 'vaguely' recall something about
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about Galeon and the others Gecko-based browsers ?
Non issue.
Nearly all organizations care about internal standards. If the
organization policy for web browsers is Firefox, every environment for
which Firefox is not part of is out of the
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:31:45AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I didn't see anyone proposing prelinking so far. I've seen rumors
that program start time for some programs decrease a lot if prelinking
is enabled. It would be nice if we could speed up the login time, or
for example the
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:12:09AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
So, without further delay, here's my Etch-wishlist, it's biased on some
of the things I've personally worked on and would like to keep working on
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As I understand DSFG 8, this covers only the case that the firefox
package
distributed by Debian *as is* must still be usable
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:17:59AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 14:48 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
I maintain a package (hdf5) which contains a pure C library and a C++
interface. However, I'm pretty sure the C++ library isn't used by
packages depending on
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Jun 15, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the priorities
of our users and free software...
And where do we strike that balance in this case? I think gaining more
freedom for our
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:57:27 -0500, John Goerzen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, we're not all *that* militant. we still have non-free.
And non-free gets stronger with every package that gets moved there.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies,
Alexander Sack wrote:
Sadly, a good example that this is true to some extent, is that the MF
apparently has no high priority to care about distributors, when it comes to
security issues. AFAIK, we cannot get access to confidential security reports in
order to prepare a fix in a timely manner.
Gervase Markham wrote:
That's simply not true. Anyone distributing significant copies of
Firefox can have a representative on the security group, which has
access to all the confidential bugs. Just ask Dan Veditz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]. In fact, Debian already has someone (Matt
Zimmerman) on the
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal
trademarks. If a trademark license allows us to ship the software the
way we want and there are no practical problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:06:51PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a
broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote:
Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal.
Sorry John, but this is BS. The text of the GPL#6 says: You may not
impose *any* further restrictions on the
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 06:51:51PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Cesar Martinez Izquierdo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, in this paragraph you are basically stating that we *should*
rename firefox to save them from such burden.
No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save our *direct*
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:11PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
People seem to be using DFSG 4 as a justification for keeping the
name, but I believe that is flawed. DFSG 4 allows for a license to say
if you meet conditions X, you can use our name, otherwise you
can't. So the TeX guys have a
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Does the opposite make it worse? I think so.
IMHO it makes no difference at all. The normal, regular,
I-dont-read-debian-mailing-lists folk install the Gnome Desktop
or the KDE Desktop tasks, see the Web Browser icon,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:35:10AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
As I said, I only regard the symlink target as configuration value, I
don't actually pretend that the actual log file is in /etc.
Okay, good; it's just that someone seemed to imply that this was not the
case.
--
The amount of time
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:50:59PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
I think keeping the name does hurt Debian. Keeping the name means we
cut a Debian specific deal. That doesn't sit well with me. I don't
want to get special treatment just because we're popular.
We don't get a special treatment just
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:54:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Firefox is free software, and DFSG-compliant: The license may
require derived works to carry a different name or version number
from the original software. (Even if it is a compromise).
But is non-rebranded Firefox
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:35:12PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their
trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a
deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we
accept such a deal as a
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:47:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a
broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote:
Yes, it's not nice, it's crap, but it's still entirely
possible within the
(pseudo-)legal framewark Debian gives itself.
Isn't Debian point to be less crap? Yeah, I even
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:09:49AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:31:45AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I didn't see anyone proposing prelinking so far. I've seen rumors
that program start time for some programs decrease a lot if prelinking
is enabled. It
On 15/06/2005 Julien BLACHE wrote:
It's a Debian derivative which was called 'TrustedDebian' at first.
I 'vaguely' recall something about the DPL requesting they change their
name...
How is this different?
The name TrustedSomething implies that the Something in question
isn't
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:13:18PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:06:51PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a
broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote:
Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal.
Sorry John, but this is BS. The text of the GPL#6
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the
difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever
complained about that offensive material.
My
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 12:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Using prelink invalidates the md5sums of files belonging to Debian packages.
Has anyone done any work to address this?
The only way to address that is to update the md5sum after prelinking is
done.
I might be talking out of my arse
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:10:06AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
Come on, that can't possibly be the intention. I could craft a license
that says you have all the rights of the BSD
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:13:41PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
That's simply not true. Anyone distributing significant copies of
Firefox can have a representative on the security group, which has
access to all the confidential bugs. Just ask Dan Veditz
[EMAIL
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:38:34AM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Their* trademark policy. Maybe the emphasis should have been there in
the first place.
Do you know the history of the Adamantix project?
Yes.
It's a Debian derivative which
On 6/15/05, Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 12:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Using prelink invalidates the md5sums of files belonging to Debian
packages.
Has anyone done any work to address this?
The only way to address that is to update the md5sum
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the
difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever
complained about that
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 23:09, Roger Leigh wrote:
I would be very thankful for links to aprorpiate search-and-replace
expressions or compatibility functions. Once I was searching for
this kind of stuff I failed.
I don't have any links I'm afraid. I only learnt GTK+ 2.0, and never
used
On Jun 15, Jonas Meurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the problem is whether the situation is acceptable under the terms of
the DFSG,
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's been suggested to rename erect penis into DPL's tentacle.
That sounds good.
What about flaccid penis and vagina?
--
_
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
* Jonas Meurer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 12:48]:
all we can discuss are principles, not particular situations. if we
decide how to behave in every particular situation, we will have very
inconsistent licences, copyrights, whatsoever in the archive.
Fine. And we also agree that the basis for
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 10:59]:
The name TrustedSomething implies that the Something in question
isn't secure. That's what got told to them, and they were asked to
change their name. It's all in the -project archives.
Very different from the Mozilla situation.
Nice
ke, 2005-06-15 kello 12:51 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt kirjoitti:
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
...
1) Is it a bug at all?
There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that
this one person may
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 11:01]:
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about Galeon and the others Gecko-based browsers ?
Non issue.
Nearly all organizations care about internal standards. If the
organization policy for web browsers is Firefox, every
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:51:31PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the
difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The idea of being sexually offended by a particular configuration of
simple geometric shapes seems rather bizarre.
Indeed. It's the naming, though!
Nevertheless, I don't see any reason for the genitalia references here,
so -- why *not* call the first of
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't see
anything in the DFSG restricting it to copyrights or excluding trademarks or
patents. So, it is my Humble Opinion that DFSG#8 applies broadly.
--
* Humberto Massa Guimarães ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 14:07]:
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't
see anything in the DFSG restricting it to copyrights or excluding
trademarks or
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine the following: by your reasoning, there is *no* free
software, because writing the software to start with is a burden on
the licensor.
Some burdens are reasonable. Some are not.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:07:58AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a
broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote:
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't
see anything in the DFSG
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:48:01PM +0200, Joerg Rieger wrote:
Well, let's use another example, the official Debian logo.
You can only use the official logo if you distribute an unchanged
version of Debian.
However if I change something I might get the official logo usage
revoked [1]:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote:
?? ??, 14/06/2005 ?? 16:55 +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo ??:
There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to binary package,
and architecture independent to data package.
I consider some common
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their
trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a
deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we
accept such a deal as a project? Does the
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DFSG does not apply to trademark licenses, only to software
(copyright) licenses.
I would like to know were this is written. DFSG, has it is written,
seem to apply to any licenses of a Debian part, not only copyright
licenses.
--
Rémi Vanicat
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 15:27 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web
browser, not without Mozilla itself.
There's still Galeon and a couple of others, based on Gecko. Should be
enough.
Julien, I'm not going to remove Firefox
[Marco d'Itri]
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
I'm curious to know where you got that impression. I just reread the
DFSG and it makes no mention of copyrights, trademarks or patents.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:13:41PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
That's simply not true. Anyone distributing significant copies of
Firefox can have a representative on the security group, which has
access to all the confidential bugs. Just
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 12:51 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt a écrit :
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the
difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 02:48 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Furthermore, this package has a long history of triggering weird
compiler errors, including several ICEs. Is there a way to test the
build with g++-4.0 on all architectures before the transition starts?
(Other than asking
[Marco d'Itri]
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
[Peter Samuelson]
I'm curious to know where you got that impression. I just reread the
DFSG and it makes no mention of copyrights, trademarks or patents.
...Although I suppose it's quite possible, given
* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 15:11]:
[Marco d'Itri]
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
[Peter Samuelson]
I'm curious to know where you got that impression. I just reread the
DFSG and it makes no mention of copyrights, trademarks or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
the problem is whether the situation is acceptable under the terms of
the DFSG,
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
The DFSG applies to everything since the release of Sarge. Haven't you
got the memo ? :P
JB.
--
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 13:27 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
Fine. And we also agree that the basis for that is the DFSG? If so,
where does the DFSG speak about trademarks at all?
The license of firefox is DFSG free. There is no discussion about.
No, it isn't. And that's what we should be
this program is not right for me and my
family
thank you for your help
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:22:19PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 02:48 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Furthermore, this package has a long history of triggering weird
compiler errors, including several ICEs. Is there a way to test the
build with g++-4.0 on
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:43:36PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 13:27 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
Fine. And we also agree that the basis for that is the DFSG? If so,
where does the DFSG speak about trademarks at all?
The license of firefox is DFSG free.
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 15:33]:
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 13:27 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
Fine. And we also agree that the basis for that is the DFSG? If so,
where does the DFSG speak about trademarks at all?
The license of firefox is DFSG free. There is no
I just wanted to confirm my recollection that now that stable has been released
with support for ~ in package versions in dpkg and apt, we can now use ~ in
package versions for upload to the Debian archive.
Is this right, or have I misremembered?
--
ke, 2005-06-15 kello 12:51 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt kirjoitti:
There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that
this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery.
A recurring problem. There's no limit to what people can be offended
about. I could be offended
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:11:32PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 15:27 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web
browser, not without Mozilla itself.
There's still Galeon and a couple of others, based on
* Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do
something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe
debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote
references to natural reproduction and anyone can
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 14:50 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
Certainly retaining the name makes life easier. But the easier thing
and the right thing are often in conflict. I've clearly been very
reluctant to take the renaming step, because I know it will cause a
lot of acrimony. But just
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 02:10 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
In the firefox case, people say You have all the rights of the
license;
and as long as it's in Debian or it's not modified, you may call it
firefox.
Exactly. How is that permissible under DFSG #8.
The logic behind the
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 14:42 +0200, Jonas Meurer a écrit :
i think it should. i second the idea that debian should provide
sources
to the community which are entirely free. sources which contain the
Mozilla trademarks and ignore their license are not entirely free.
Debian defines freedom
Hallo Frank, hallo Adrian!
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
TeX-Live exists for a couple of years now, and while it might gain some
teTeX users, teTeX upstream is by no means dead. So for these users,
Definitely. Thomas is himself actively contributing to TeXlive.
One other thing is
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 16:19 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
If you have a package that depends on libselinux1-dev or if you intend
to upload such a package, please find below the correct way(tm) to add
SElinux support:
* debian/control or debian/control.in (or even debian.control.in.in)
This one time, at band camp, Ralf Hildebrandt said:
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the
difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a
Hi!
* Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050615 12:51]:
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
Interessting... my I report the wishlist bug, that it should be possible
with GLSnake to show a specific - uhm - thing?
1)
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:10:06AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
Come on, that can't possibly be the intention. I could craft a license
* Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop
Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to
Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian?
What about Galeon and the others
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal
trademarks. If a trademark license allows us to ship the software the
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 14:42 +0200, Jonas Meurer a écrit :
i think it should. i second the idea that debian should provide
sources
to the community which are entirely free. sources which contain the
Mozilla trademarks and ignore their
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 17:41 +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
- What is a gegl? I couldn't find it in any dictionary.
Genetically Engineered Goat (extra Leg). Part of GNOME folklore, google
will tell you more.
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:11PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
People seem to be using DFSG 4 as a justification for keeping the
name, but I believe that is flawed. DFSG 4 allows for a license to say
if you meet conditions X, you can use our name,
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 15:27 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web
browser, not without Mozilla itself.
There's still Galeon and a couple of others, based on Gecko. Should be
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Where possible, sure. But principles doesn't mean the rules should be
exactly the same.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the rules
should necessarily be the
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Like others in this thread I disagree with your position. I don't
think you'd
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:23:19PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
The MoFo has made no statement that they would grant a trademark
license to anyone would adhered to the same standards as Debian. If
this were true (and hopefully in writing), I think things would be
much less problematic.
Well,
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:07:58AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a
broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote:
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument,
Peter Samuelson writes:
I'm curious to know where you got that impression. I just reread the
DFSG and it makes no mention of copyrights, trademarks or patents.
The legislative history of the DFSG makes it quite clear that it was only
intended to apply to copyrights.
--
John Hasler
--
To
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Does the opposite make it worse? I think so.
IMHO it makes no difference at all. The normal, regular,
I-dont-read-debian-mailing-lists folk install the Gnome Desktop
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:34:06PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
[snip]
3) menu now support automatic translations of menu sections, in 32
different languages and this is supported out-of-the-box by a fair
number of window-manager in Sarge. Crappy snapshots here:
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050615 18:23]:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Anyone who gets firefox from Debian has the same rights under the
trademark license: either they ask the Mozilla Foundation whether they
adhere to their standards, or they rename the thing.
Hello, I wanted to know if there is possible to add the zero
penality hit patch for squid in the debian package tree.
The patch is located at: http://www.it-academy.bg/zph/squid-2.5.STABLE10-ToS_Hit.patch
- for squid (2.5-10)
Thanks
--
This message was scanned for spam and
15.06.2005 pisze Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you
either rename it to something else or get permission to call it firefox.
Doesn't sound non-free to me.
Please explain to me why it's alright to get special permission to
Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
It seems to me that it's a wishlist item.
It also seems to me that a reasonable course would be to disable it by
default, but leave it as an
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:12:26PM +0100, Sam Morris wrote:
Perhaps maintainers should publish PICS ratings[0] for each of their
packages, which can be placed in the package control information, or
incorporated into a debtags offensiveness facet? ;)
No.
I consider offensive some parts on
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 05:38:06PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:34:06PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
[snip]
3) menu now support automatic translations of menu sections, in 32
different languages and this is supported out-of-the-box by a fair
number of
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
- insert your items here
- Improve hardware detection, make sure excluded kernel modules only
need to be listed one place.
OK. Something to improve uppon.
- Replace default syslog-daemon to one capable to storing
severity/facility in the log file.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:50:44PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you
either rename it to something else or get
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
