Re: Client P2P dans Sarge
GuitGuit44 [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Alors si quelqu'un a des infos a ce sujet, il peut me les faires partager Tu peux utiliser le paquet mldonkey dans unstable. Et c'est un client multireseau, pas un truc bittorrent. -- Miroir de logiciels libreshttp://www.etud-orleans.fr Développement de logiciels libres http://aspo.rktmb.org/activites/developpement Infogerance de serveur dédié http://aspo.rktmb.org/activites/infogerance (En louant les services de l'ASPO vous luttez contre la fracture numerique) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Hi, Now that sarge has been released it's time to revisit this problem. Most of the problems revolve around this document: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html From my reading of this, I'm not permitted to do such necessary things such as security patches, and retain the name Firefox. This has been brought up with Gervase Markham (who seems to be the Mozilla point of contact on these issues) before on debian-legal: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg6.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00023.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00503.html Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. It's now nearly six months since the debian-legal threads, sarge is out the door, so it's time to do something about this. As I see it, we have the following options: 1. Completely ignore their Trademark Policy document and let MoFo come to us if they're not happy with our use of the marks. 2. Rename Firefox and strip all trademarks out. 3. Accept MoFo's offer of Debian-specific trademark usage. 4. Try to negotiate some other arrangement with MoFo. I don't believe we can really do #1 in good conscience. I don't believe #3 is acceptable under the DFSG. It's been 6 months with no real progress towards a resolution that I can see, so #4 seems to be stalled, but again I invite Gervase to restart discussions. That lives #2 as an unappealing solution, but perhaps the only way to go. So for hopefully the last time I'd like to get people's opinion on this before I take any action. Am I being too pedantic? I'd also love to hear how Ubuntu is handling this (not to fan the flames, just to get a different perspective). -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
[Darren Salt] ISTM that a non-standard disk format (21 sectors per track and/or more tracks) would help - or would this just cause too many problems? I think it's safe to assume anyone can boot and read a 1600 kB floppy. 1743 kB is common but possibly problematic. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 04:00:25PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Nothing, except for the fact that most admins haven't the foggiest idea how to do that. Thus the suggestion that the default runlevels be what most people expect them to be. And it _does_ come with predefined options and settings: ones unique to Debian. 5 runlevels acting exactly the same way? -- Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.10|Helsinki Finland GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69 Bates Motel... 12 rooms, 12 vacancies. --Norman Bates (Psycho) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
[I am not subscribed to debian-devel, please Cc: me if you feel your reply deserves my attention.] On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 10:10 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: The basics of the new format are: * Multiple upstream tarballs are supported: * The Debian Diff may be replaced by the Debian Tar: * Bzip2 compression is supported as an alternative to gzip. As a practical matter, how soon will these really be supported in Debian? Is dpkg change all that is needed? i.e. Could I upload a new revision of a package that has multiple upstream tarballs, and a debian.tar.bz2 right now, or are there a lot of other things that have to change first? Historically we always wanted to be able to use all the source in the archive with the tools available in stable. If that policy is still true you would be able to use the new features by the time edge releases with the new dpkg. That is in some 10 to 18 months :) That's sadly totally untrue. Either you mean use all the source in the archive with the DPKG-DEV available in stable -- or it was utterly violated by all the packages in the sarge period that used (e.g.) debhelper features available in woody. It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear katie) are prepared to accept. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
Hi Scott, On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear katie) are prepared to accept. Are you pushing for this or just seeing what's going to happen? Do you know if Ubuntu going to support the new format during etch's testing phase (say 18 months for argument's sake)? Simon. -- * They were trying to manipulate behaviour. Alter people's * | decision making - what to buy, who to vote for .. - Mulder | * You think they'll stop at commerce or politics? - X * Brought to you by the letter G and the number 29 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Hi Gerv, Gervase Markham wrote: - The Mozilla Foundation gives Debian permission to use the Firefox logo and brand name. Is the brand name 'Firefox' or 'Mozilla Firefox'? I remember that this whole discussion started because we should remove the Mozilla prefix from the software and package name? Is this still true or are you granting us the right to use Mozilla Firefox/Mozilla Thunderbird/Mozilla Sunbird - that is, not modify the sources shipped by mozilla.org in this regard? Cheers, -- GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Alexander Sack| : :' : The universal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `' Operating System http://www.asoftsite.org | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)
Bernd Eckenfels wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: That said, the Debian Policy document does mandage use of the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), which in turn describes /etc like this: /etc contains configuration files and directories that are specific to the current system. This cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean anything than configuration stuff only. When I say reasonably, I mean that a sharp lawer-like mind might interpret it in whatever way they wish, on a larch, but that is not useful for building an operating system. Not that I like it, but a link in etc to the log direcoty is as good as a config gile containing logdir=. Only that the former is easier to use. And since debian does place a lot of (alternative) links in etc it is a well accepted config method. However I am not sure if it is used that way in the package. ok, that's gotta be invalid argument since this could be argued for ANY file so you would end up with links to EVERYTHING in /etc, so that program would know where to find libraries, binaries, images, web pages (hey! we need a way to store URLs in filesystem) etc. I guess you were joking... erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: Historically we always wanted to be able to use all the source in the archive with the tools available in stable. If that policy is still true you would be able to use the new features by the time edge releases with the new dpkg. That is in some 10 to 18 months :) That's sadly totally untrue. Either you mean use all the source in the archive with the DPKG-DEV available in stable Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g., buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said manipulate, not build. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Gervase Markham wrote: Is this still true or are you granting us the right to use Mozilla Firefox/Mozilla Thunderbird/Mozilla Sunbird - that is, not modify the sources shipped by mozilla.org in this regard? I don't quite understand the second part of that question. I am anticipating that, if we come to an arrangement, Debian would be shipping something called Firefox rather than Mozilla Firefox in the UI; we reserve Mozilla Firefox for stuff we ship ourselves directly. Ideally, if we were starting from scratch, the packages would also be called firefox rather than mozilla-firefox, but we'd probably be OK with not renaming them if the hassle of changing was great. I was just unsure whether 'The Mozilla Foundation gives Debian permission to use the Firefox logo and brand name' still calls for removal of the Mozilla prefix. BTW, I am currently trying to figure out which logos to use for the prospective sunbird package. AFAIK, sunbird has no such thing like a free logo. Can you try to take care that something similar will be available for sunbird too? Cheers, -- GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Alexander Sack| : :' : The universal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `' Operating System http://www.asoftsite.org | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 CDs and DVDs released
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:33:42AM +0200, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote: As AMD64 is unofficial, the URL for downloading the images is slightly different to that used for the officially-released sarge architectures: How exactly AMD64 is unofficial (apart for the use of uppercase) ? Did not the security team and the SRM just agreed to support it ? Is it not sufficient for the official label ? It doesn't have the official label, isn't on the official ftp-master and it releases a bit behind the official archs. Puzzled, MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inconsistent handling of sourceless packages in main
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The above is a bit sparce on details of what exactly is the issue here. debian-installer builds use udeb's, and work is underway to not only keep those udeb's used last, but the udeb's for all d-i builds on the mirror network. If a udeb or deb is on the mirrors, the corresponding source is too, that's already ensured. How will you do that? Will that include the files copied from the build system into the D-I images? Can the same mechanism be used for ia32-libs and similar? Nothing decided yet, thinking about the raw-installer upload hook to do something terribly d-i specific to keep all the needed udeb's for the installed d-i images around in some special 'fake' suite. How about an entry in the changes file: Deb-Sources: libc6 (= 1.2-3), devmapper-udeb (= 4.5-6), The D-I build can fill in the right packages and versions and the same could be used by ia32-libs. I like the idea of a fake suite so D-I or ia32-libs doesn't stop packages migrating to testing. But before a release someone has to check that all packages in the fake suite are also in testing. Not like with sarge. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 09:18 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear katie) are prepared to accept. Are you pushing for this or just seeing what's going to happen? Do you know if Ubuntu going to support the new format during etch's testing phase (say 18 months for argument's sake)? I'm not particularly pushing, in the sense that pushing within Debian would involve writing the patches to katie etc. myself and I don't really have the time to do that. I'm leaning and gesticulating wildly in that direction though. Ubuntu has a 6-monthly release schedule, so they're almost certain to adopt new formats before Debian. A good example is the fact that Ubuntu shipped bz2-compressed debs in hoary for a few packages that benefited from it, and Debian doesn't even allow them to be uploaded. While I don't know what Ubuntu's plans are, because I'm as equally uninvolved in those as I am with Debian, I would not be surprised if their maintainers chose to adopt it for their source packages once build support is available. Though I wouldn't expect them to convert things. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:20 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: Historically we always wanted to be able to use all the source in the archive with the tools available in stable. If that policy is still true you would be able to use the new features by the time edge releases with the new dpkg. That is in some 10 to 18 months :) That's sadly totally untrue. Either you mean use all the source in the archive with the DPKG-DEV available in stable Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g., buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said manipulate, not build. Why can't you just install the unstable ones? Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g., buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said manipulate, not build. Why can't you just install the unstable ones? Because we don't run unstable on our project machines for a reason? -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:50 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g., buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said manipulate, not build. Why can't you just install the unstable ones? Because we don't run unstable on our project machines for a reason? You don't have to run everything unstable, you know; just the bits you want. An 18-month delay between features being implemented and used fundamentally results in an 18-month delay between them being implemented and _TESTED_. In other words, adding features to dpkg/dpkg-dev in unstable and then waiting for them to go into stable before using them means that the bugs aren't found until the feature is already in stable and thus unfixable until the next stable release. A recent example of this would be #313400, which has only just been noticed despite the implementation being 6-months old. Yet this has major consequences. Another example would be the fact that the bzip2-compressed deb support was broken, and it was only because Ubuntu decided to use it that we discovered this. We would have shipped non-working support in stable, and had to wait another 18+ months before it was useful. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. It's now nearly six months I'd say that it is a clear violation of the DFSG, not only in spirit. So for hopefully the last time I'd like to get people's opinion on this before I take any action. Am I being too pedantic? I'd also love to hear how Ubuntu is handling this (not to fan the flames, just to get a different perspective). The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work with the MoFo. By the way, what is the status wrt OpenOffice.org, which has the same kind of issue ? JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 18:59 -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: it's a bit off topic but could you please explain how does the name /etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log indicate it was created by postgresql-common (as opposed to any other postgrsql-* packages, e.g. postgresql-7.4 seems like a good candidate as well)? Sorry; I mean that it indicates it to those with the requisite knowlege, not that it is obvious from the name. postgresql-common is the package that ties together postgresql-7.4, postgresql-8.0 and packages for as yet nonexistent upstream versions and enables them to run concurrently. It therefore builds the structures that accomplish this. What does /usr/bin/pg_createcluster have to do with anything? It is the script that builds the cluster structure. OK, so I looked at it and the script actually creates that link (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log), seems pretty evil. Any ideas why would anybody do it? I'm not sure why Martin chose to put a log link in /etc, which is why I have not addressed that point. -- Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA Do you want to know God? http://www.lfix.co.uk/knowing_god.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 17:11 -0500, Adam Heath wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Olaf van der Spek wrote: On 6/13/05, Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a stupid argument. It's not that stupid. But it is. Calling an argument stupid is another way of saying you disagree with it but cannot be bothered to adduce your own arguments -- or don't want to risk someone else's calling them stupid. It is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule. If other files shouldn't be there, the specs should explicitly state that. Use just a *little* bit of common sense. FHS does explicitly forbid binaries in /etc, but does not forbid other things that are not configuration files. The obvious implication is that, though those things may be undesirable, they are not forbidden. It is certainly desirable to keep things as much in accordance with the intention of policy as possible, but policy and the FHS do allow some latitude, even if only by not making their definitions rigorously complete. Since I don't know why Martin chose to do it this way, I can't advance his arguments in favour of using that latitude. -- Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA Do you want to know God? http://www.lfix.co.uk/knowing_god.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, June 14, 2005 09:58, Julien BLACHE wrote: The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work with the MoFo. If what works with the FSF would be the criterion for Debian, then we wouldn't have this whole GFDL issue. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, June 14, 2005 08:00, Eric Dorland wrote: Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this exception for software coming in, why can't we accept this same exception for software derived from our distribution? We don't want to limit the freedoms of those deriving from our distribution, but we accept that limiting the freedom of some trademarks is acceptable. We accept that we can use the Mozilla trademarks, but we also accept that this might not be applicable to downstreams that make huge modifications. It might be beneficial though to have an agreement with MoFo that allows for downstreams of Debian to also use the name, as long as they only modify the package in ways similar to Debian. If you have a downstream that just copies, or copies-and-fixes-bugs, this would surely be just as acceptable to MoFo, right? Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
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 for etch. I would love to hear the Release Managers opinion on what they believe should be Release Goals for etch besides the things we all already know about (non-free documentation purged from main, changes in supported architectures...) Feel free to add some new items or add (hopefully new) information to the ones I list below: Ok, sure. Here are a few one-liners about various things I'm aware of that one person or another wants to see happen in the etch timeframe, together with the name of the person who has claimed responsibility: Toolchain update to gcc/g++ 4.0 - Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Switch to dependency-based init.d handling -- Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drop libpng2/libpng10-0/libpng3 packages - Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drop libmysqlclient10/libmysqlclient12 packages - Adam Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Consistent LFS support - Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bend all library packages to my will - Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] You seem to have a rather long wishlist of your own; are these all things that you personally plan to work on during the etch cycle? If so, kudos! If not, which ones are you expecting to spend your time on, and which are you looking for help with? It would be nice to see more communication still from maintainers when they're planning large transitions in unstable; for instance, GNOME 2.10 started being uploaded to unstable without anyone letting the release team know it was coming, and I'm told there are a couple of places where this might make the toolchain transition more complicated than it needed to be. [ Release improvements ] - Prune packages from release based on popularity, packages which are not used by anyone should not go in! (not enough peer review, probably not audited, bug ridden with bugs, including security making security handling a nightmare) It is, after all, quite difficult to determine that a package is not used by *anyone*. You can use popcon to give you prospective candidates, but popcon doesn't prove the package is unused (and, well, a simple statement from the maintainer is counterevidence). That doesn't mean I think you're using the wrong metric; I'm just noting that the payoff for looking for unused packages tends to be very low :) - Remove _all_ out of date dummy packages! (see #308711 and other bugs!) Ongoing area of work; Jeroen has bumped these bugs to 'serious' now, so they ought to find themselves cleaned up fairly quickly, I think. - Better (not manual!) tracking of bugs associated with testing release Which we get when version tracking is added to the BTS. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work with the MoFo. The downside to this approach is that the Mozilla Foundation have no good reason to /care/. They're a group that produces free software, but they're not campaigning for freedom. In any case, we can make their software DFSG-free by removing any references to the trademarks. Dropping it entirely wouldn't really help anyone. I ought to be seeing Gervase Markham in a couple of weeks - I'm happy to bring this up with him in person. It'd be easier to do so if we could firmly establish what we think is needed when it comes to trademark issues like this. Perhaps that's better suited to -project? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this exception for software coming in, why can't we accept this same exception for software derived from our distribution? This is basically our position. I include below, for reference, an email I sent to Eric 24 hours ago in response to his request to settle this issue. It outlines a rough shape of an agreement which I hope we can reach. It might be beneficial though to have an agreement with MoFo that allows for downstreams of Debian to also use the name, as long as they only modify the package in ways similar to Debian. If you have a downstream that just copies, or copies-and-fixes-bugs, this would surely be just as acceptable to MoFo, right? I completely agree that Debian redistributors without modification (as in here's a Debian CD) shouldn't be restricted. However, one of the reasons we are happy for Debian to have the great flexibility outlined below is that Debian has a great track record for producing quality software (eventually ;-P). J. Random Downstream-Developer may not have such a reputation, and so there is a greater risk that the marks cease to be seen as a mark of quality if we are too broad in our unconditional grant to your downstream. Having made that point, I think we could say that if the modifications _they_ made to the base Debian packages were within the Mozilla trademark policy, then there would be no need to ask us about it. I would say, though, that given the great ease with which one can rebrand Firefox (see below for evidence), which is probably easier than almost any other existing application of comparable size due to the Netscape heritage and their need to rebrand, I don't think that it would be significantly limiting downstream freedoms if we said they had to change the name (or ask us) for *all* modifications. After all, that's what some packages whose licenses have name-change clauses say. Gerv Previous email to Eric: Original Message Subject: Re: Firefox Trademark Issues Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:15:27 +0100 From: Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: mozilla.org To: Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric Dorland wrote: Sarge is released, so the time is ripe to figure out what I'm going to do. This issue has been dragging out like 6 months now, so lets hash it out. OK. One thing I remember being a concern last time was the level of difficulty of rebranding Firefox. You may have noticed that the Firefox 1.1 preview release has been rebranded as Deer Park. The work went on in this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294399 There were a few false starts, but I think it's clear that fundamentally, rebranding Firefox is not a complicated or lengthy operation. Having said that, is it possible to come to an agreement along the following lines? - The Mozilla Foundation gives Debian permission to use the Firefox logo and brand name. - That permission is revocable, but not for shipped or frozen versions of Debian. - It's the Foundation's responsibility to make sure the Debian version meets our requirements; if we have issues, we sort them out with the maintainer in the first instance. - The requirements in question (or, probably, a set of principles or something like that) would be the result of a discussion between the Foundation and the maintainer. - The permission to ship copies of Debian's version extends to everyone. - The permission to ship modified versions of Debian's version does not extend to everyone; if they make changes, they have to rebrand or ask permission. This is analogous to the clause which is found in some BSD licences, stating that modified packages of software are required to have a different name. As noted above, this is not a difficult exercise. Can we make this fly? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#312897: ITP: texlive -- The TeXlive system packaged for debian
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:41:47AM +0200, frank wrote: If we had texlive in Debian, there wouldn't be such pressure. teTeX would be updated to the current version shortly after a release, and then would stick to that upstream version no matter what happened until the next release. And the buildds and package maintainers would be happy. Not too sure about that. It seems likely that teTeX and TeX-live packages will have to conflict with each others. This mean that in order to build a Debian package, you might need to remove you TeX installation and install another one. This is likely to be painful. The packages that contain files with the same names (e.g. the executables, basic TeX input files,...) will have to conflict, of course, but you can use LaTeX styles from texlive with teTeX. And I would try to have a virtual package tex-system or the like, and packages would Build-depends: tex-system | tetex-bin. Thus, the buildds would be safe, only individual users still have a chance to spot incompatibilities... OTOH, TeX having a very high level of internal compatibility, it might be possible to mix and match, but that might require to split teTeX debian packages in smaller chunk. We do plan to split tetex-bin further, and to change the splitting scheme for tetex-base. But I don't see currently how this is _needed_ for coexistence. You can either have a pure teTeX, a pure texlive, or teTeX with missing parts taken from texlive packages. It would be hard (and hardly sensible) to try the other way round, texlive basic packages with, say, tetex-extra. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: Bug#313094: shared libraries, bug 313094
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:28:57PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Very recently somebody filled a bug against on of my packages,
#313094.
In brief, the library soname changed without me realizing it, and the
package made in into the sarge release before anyone noticed. This
means that
a) (old) packages that linked with the old library won't work with the
new library.
b) recent packages that linked with the new library won't work with
the old library.
I added to the bug report saying I did not consider it worth fixing,
because the only breakage occurs if you upload from a version that
**no longer exists**[1] and was **never distributed in any stable release
of Debian**.
However somebody else has upgraded the severity of the bug to serious,
making it a release critical. The person offered no explanation as to
why they felt it was serious, or why they disagreed with my
assessment.
So what do people think?
* Is this a bug?
Yes.
* Does it need fixing?
No. Rather, it's not fixable; there is no fix here that isn't worse than
the current bugginess. What's done is done, there's no way to take back the
broken package name that has already been inflicted on the users of
stable, and all the users of testing/unstable that had upgraded since the
soname changed.
* Is serious really appropriate?
Not really, though it might have looked that way to Frank at a glance.
* What is the best way to fix this?
- Should I change the name libdar2 to libdar3? Or should I wait
until libdar4?
No. Then you have a libdar3 that Conflicts: with libdar2 and anything
depending on it, and everyone's systems have already been broken if they
were going to break. What would be the point?
- Should I add the (yucky) version dependency as suggested by the
bug reporter?
That would be fine, but it's not RC that you do so.
Option #3: future-proof your package so that this never happens again.
I've attached a couple of files that are a snapshot of a more intelligent
solution for library soname/shlibs handling that I'm working on, which I
would like to see widely adopted by library maintainers as early as possible
in the etch cycle. There are still some unresolved issues, though, and I
haven't gotten a chance to talk to the debhelper maintainer about this at
all yet, so take it with a grain of salt for now. :)
My personal opinion is that it isn't really a bug, because it only is
only an issue for people who used the now obsolete version from a
previous testing/unstable. My understanding is that while Debian
supports upgrades from stable--stable, we don't necessarily guarantee
upgrades from testing will work flawlessly.
We don't *guarantee* it, but it should always be a goal.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
update-manifest.sh
Description: Bourne shell script
--- /usr/bin/dh_makeshlibs 2005-04-22 08:34:24.0 -0700
+++ debian/dh_makeshlibs2005-06-12 01:30:24.0 -0700
@@ -114,19 +114,86 @@
if (defined($dh{EXCLUDE_FIND}) $dh{EXCLUDE_FIND} ne '') {
$exclude=! \\( $dh{EXCLUDE_FIND} \\) ;
}
+ my @manifest;
+ my %shlibsmatch;
+ my $failure;
+ if (-e debian/$package.manifest) {
+ open (MANIFEST, debian/$package.manifest);
+ @manifest = MANIFEST;
+ close MANIFEST;
+ if ($manifest[0] !~ /^\s+VERSION\s+1$/) {
+ # Wrong version number -- ignore it silently?
+ # throw a warning?
+ undef (@manifest);
+ }
+ my (@shlibslist) = grep(/^\s+SONAME\s+/, @manifest);
+ for (@shlibslist) { s/^\s+SONAME\s+// }
+ foreach my $i (@shlibslist) {
+ my ($name, $version) = split(/\s+/,$i);
+ $shlibsmatch{$name} = [$version, 0];
+ }
+ }
open (FIND, find $tmp -type f \\( -name '*.so' -or -name '*.so.*' \\)
$exclude |);
while (FIND) {
- my ($library, $major);
+ chomp;
+ my ($library, $major, $soname);
my $objdump=`objdump -p $_`;
if ($objdump=~m/\s+SONAME\s+(.+)\.so\.(.+)/) {
# proper soname format
$library=$1;
$major=$2;
+ $soname=$1.so.$2;
}
elsif ($objdump=~m/\s+SONAME\s+(.+)-(.+)\.so/) {
# idiotic crap soname format
$library=$1;
$major=$2;
+ $soname=$1-$2.so;
+ }
+
+ if (@manifest) {
+ $failure = Error: new library $soname added to
package\n
+ . Please update the library manifest
+ unless exists($shlibsmatch{$soname});
+ $shlibsmatch{$soname}[1] = 1;
+
+
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would say, though, that given the great ease with which one can rebrand Firefox (see below for evidence), which is probably easier than almost any other existing application of comparable size due to the Netscape heritage and their need to rebrand, I don't think that it would be significantly limiting downstream freedoms if we said they had to change the name (or ask us) for *all* modifications. After all, that's what some packages whose licenses have name-change clauses say. As we discussed at some point, it would be really lovely if this process could either be documented or integrated into the build system - being able to do --disable-official-branding --name=Debian Iceweasel in configure would make life much easier and make it clear what level of changes are expected in order to conform with the trademark policy. (I don't think this is an issue for DFSG compliance, it's just something that would be nice to have :) ) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Alexander Sack wrote: Is the brand name 'Firefox' or 'Mozilla Firefox'? I remember that this whole discussion started because we should remove the Mozilla prefix from the software and package name? That's not quite right. Removing the Mozilla prefix was one of the issues that came up in the discussion, but I don't think it was the first cause. Is this still true or are you granting us the right to use Mozilla Firefox/Mozilla Thunderbird/Mozilla Sunbird - that is, not modify the sources shipped by mozilla.org in this regard? I don't quite understand the second part of that question. I am anticipating that, if we come to an arrangement, Debian would be shipping something called Firefox rather than Mozilla Firefox in the UI; we reserve Mozilla Firefox for stuff we ship ourselves directly. Ideally, if we were starting from scratch, the packages would also be called firefox rather than mozilla-firefox, but we'd probably be OK with not renaming them if the hassle of changing was great. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (I've Cc:ed -project - I think this is a more philosophical issue) However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this exception for software coming in, why can't we accept this same exception for software derived from our distribution? I think this argument is moderately persuasive. DFSG 4 allows a license to require a name change on modification. If Debian is granted an extra permission to keep the name the same, but that freedom is not passed on to downstream recipients, is the license free? It could be argued that DFSG 8 forbids that, but if Debian isn't granted that freedom then the license /is/ free. I think any interpretation of the DFSG that results in a free license becoming non-free if extra permissions are granted (even if those permissions are only to some people) ought to be incorrect. Of course, it's not entirely clear what scope DFSG 4 has. If a requirement to change the name is free, is a requirement to change name-related branding? I'd think that logos /ought/ to be covered under DFSG 4, but it's not made explicit. It might be beneficial though to have an agreement with MoFo that allows for downstreams of Debian to also use the name, as long as they only modify the package in ways similar to Debian. If you have a downstream that just copies, or copies-and-fixes-bugs, this would surely be just as acceptable to MoFo, right? There's some issue of trust here. The Mozilla Foundation believes that Debian is able to produce packages of equivalent quality to their own, and so doesn't worry about us tainting their image. That's not necessarily true of our downstreams (and, let's face it, not all Debian-derived distributions are of equal quality) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
shared libraries, bug 313094
Hello, Very recently somebody filled a bug against on of my packages, #313094. In brief, the library soname changed without me realizing it, and the package made in into the sarge release before anyone noticed. This means that a) (old) packages that linked with the old library won't work with the new library. b) recent packages that linked with the new library won't work with the old library. I added to the bug report saying I did not consider it worth fixing, because the only breakage occurs if you upload from a version that **no longer exists**[1] and was **never distributed in any stable release of Debian**. However somebody else has upgraded the severity of the bug to serious, making it a release critical. The person offered no explanation as to why they felt it was serious, or why they disagreed with my assessment. I am guessing that this means that the Debian administrators will have to go back in time, and prevent my package from getting released with sarge, but I didn't think Debian had the funds for a time machine grin. So what do people think? * Is this a bug? * Does it need fixing? * Is serious really appropriate? * What is the best way to fix this? - Should I change the name libdar2 to libdar3? Or should I wait until libdar4? - Should I add the (yucky) version dependency as suggested by the bug reporter? My personal opinion is that it isn't really a bug, because it only is only an issue for people who used the now obsolete version from a previous testing/unstable. My understanding is that while Debian supports upgrades from stable--stable, we don't necessarily guarantee upgrades from testing will work flawlessly. Comments anyone? Notes: [1] Not counting hurd-i386, this platform would appear to be months behind. I don't think the bug reporter used hurd though. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 12:10:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 07:49:51AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:17:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: What are we setting out to achieve? - To verify that the person so identified controls a specific email address What does 'control' mean here? Given this: Many people consider all of options a), b), and c) to be inappropriate, and will instead encrypt each of the uid signatures individually and mail them to the corresponding email address, to verify that you control each address. I presume that you just mean 'is capable of receiving mail sent to the address', but that is anybody at all with an internet connection and a copy of woody, which contains all you need to capture other people's mail. I'm not sure why you're bothering to verify that the person so identified falls into this group. Yes, and might I say, your personal email is particularly juicy. The only explanation I can come up with for that being 'juicy' is that your wife has made you sleep outside again. Oh -- or did you mean to say anybody at all with an Internet connection, a copy of woody, and *access to one of the networks/hosts in the path of travel of the email*? No. The path is easily redirected for short periods of time to a host which you do have access to. There's a variety of methods for doing this which are commonly used by the script kiddies and phishers, but for obvious reasons I'm not going to go into details on a public mailing list. It's been said that email is like a postcard, but really it's more like going to your window and shouting across the valley. Odds are that nobody is listening or would give a damn if they were, but they can easily listen to a given person if they want to. Mail delivery is nothing remotely resembling secure. That's why we need keys in the first place (and all you people waving smtp-tls around, go back and think about how useful that's going to be without signing keys). This is an argument that there is no such thing as perfect security. No, it's an observation that there is not even an attempt at security here. Verifying that the signee has control over the email address is exactly that -- that's why I didn't say that it was verifying who *owned* the email address. Knowing this may be of limited value, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing. What value exactly do you gain by verifying that the signee has an internet connection and a handful of basic tools? I can't think of a reason why you'd go to all this trouble just to verify that. I thought it was obvious from the fact that they use both email and gpg. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Eric Dorland: 1. Completely ignore their Trademark Policy document and let MoFo come to us if they're not happy with our use of the marks. This is the policy we have adopted with PHP, Apache and similarly-licensed software. It's basically the only choice when we want to continue to distribute software such as phpGroupWare or Apache::Request. In the Firefox case, the trademark situation is extremely murky because in many countries, the Mozilla Foundation doesn't even own that trademark WRT to computer programs (examples: Germany, United Kingdom). Looks like someone didn't do his or her homework before choosing the name. 8-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Toolchain update to gcc/g++ 4.0 - Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Switch to dependency-based init.d handling -- Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drop libpng2/libpng10-0/libpng3 packages - Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drop libmysqlclient10/libmysqlclient12 packages - Adam Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Consistent LFS support - Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] libpcap0.9 transition - myself (more on that later) -- ,''`. : :' :Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/ `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Thijs :: On Tue, June 14, 2005 08:00, Eric Dorland wrote: Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this exception for software coming in, why can't we accept this same exception for software derived from our distribution? I think you are 100% correct. The right choice IMHO is #3: to strip all trademarks from the mozilla products (automagically(*) if possible) and move on with our lives. (*) meaning that instead of a patch, a script is put under debian/ to strip and change all the trademarks before the build -- so others can benefit from the script, too. We don't want to limit the freedoms of those deriving from our distribution, but we accept that limiting the freedom of some trademarks is acceptable. We accept that we can use the Mozilla trademarks, but we also accept that this might not be applicable to downstreams that make huge modifications. It might be beneficial though to have an agreement with MoFo that allows for downstreams of Debian to also use the name, as long as they only modify the package in ways similar to Debian. If you have a downstream that just copies, or copies-and-fixes-bugs, this would surely be just as acceptable to MoFo, right? No. This is not what free software is about (only modifiying the package in ways similar to Debian). We should do the hard work (strip the trademarks) so the community can benefit from our already-stripped mozillas and do whatever it wants with them. This seems to be more like the Debian Way to me. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. This is not what free software is about (only modifiying the package in ways similar to Debian). We should do the hard work (strip the trademarks) so the community can benefit from our already-stripped mozillas and do whatever it wants with them. This seems to be more like the Debian Way to me. I agree that doing the work to make the trademarks removable serves our users, but how does *us* removing the trademarks benefit freedom or our users? They end up with exactly the same rights whether we remove them or not. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work with the MoFo. The downside to this approach is that the Mozilla Foundation have no good reason to /care/. They're a group that produces free software, but they're not campaigning for freedom. In any case, we can make their software DFSG-free by removing any references to the trademarks. Dropping it entirely wouldn't really help anyone. It seems to me that what the MoFo really cares about is market share, and producing /free/ software comes after that on their list of priorities. We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: eh, wtf, Debian hasn't got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird? omgwtf $DISTRO has them! Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:50:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g., buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said manipulate, not build. Why can't you just install the unstable ones? Because we don't run unstable on our project machines for a reason? That's right. We use backports.org. Cheers, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Matthew Garrett wrote: Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. This is not what free software is about (only modifiying the package in ways similar to Debian). We should do the hard work (strip the trademarks) so the community can benefit from our already-stripped mozillas and do whatever it wants with them. This seems to be more like the Debian Way to me. I agree that doing the work to make the trademarks removable serves our users, but how does *us* removing the trademarks benefit freedom or our users? They end up with exactly the same rights whether we remove them or not. I agree. The only difference would be that it would not be as tempting or easy for downstream users to infringe MF trademarks by accident. Anyway, should debian care for that? -- GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Alexander Sack| : :' : The universal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `' Operating System http://www.asoftsite.org | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as free? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On 14/06/2005 Alexander Sack wrote: Matthew Garrett wrote: I agree that doing the work to make the trademarks removable serves our users, but how does *us* removing the trademarks benefit freedom or our users? They end up with exactly the same rights whether we remove them or not. I agree. The only difference would be that it would not be as tempting or easy for downstream users to infringe MF trademarks by accident. Anyway, should debian care for that? 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. bye jonas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition
libglade was orphaned 660 days ago and there's a libglade2 package in the archive. However, there are still 52 packages which depend or build-depend on the old libglade. Can someone please plan and coordinate a transition to libglade2 so libglade can eventually be removed? The list of packages (this may contain source and binary packages): bins gabber gal gco gfax ghemical glimmer gnobog gnome-chess gnome-commander gnome-find gnome-pilot gnome-ruby gnomp3 gnotepad+ gnucash gpredict gtkhtml guikachu guppi lablgtk libcapplet libgal-dev libgal23 libglade-java libglade-ruby1.6 libgladexml-perl libgtk-perl libgtkhtml1.1-3 libguppi-dev liblablgtk-ocaml liblablgtk-ocaml-dev multi-gnome-terminal ogle-gui peacock pike7.2 pike7.2-gtk pike7.4 pike7.4-gtk pike7.6 pike7.6-gtk python-glade-1.2 python-gnome python-gnome-1.2 sitecopy stars/contrib visualos xemacs21-gnome-mule xemacs21-gnome-mule-canna-wnn xemacs21-gnome-nomule xsitecopy yank -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: libglade was orphaned 660 days ago and there's a libglade2 package in the archive. However, there are still 52 packages which depend or build-depend on the old libglade. Can someone please plan and coordinate a transition to libglade2 so libglade can eventually be removed? libglade2 is the GTK2 version of libglade, so it would have to be a GTK-GTK2 transition. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Julien BLACHE wrote: software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. 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. Especially, if the versions distributed in sarge/stable gets more and more outdated, the lack of communication and assistance on security issues becomes a more critical problem. -- GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Alexander Sack| : :' : The universal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `' Operating System http://www.asoftsite.org | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-14 13:48]: libglade was orphaned 660 days ago and there's a libglade2 package in the archive. However, there are still 52 packages which depend or build-depend on the old libglade. Can someone please plan and coordinate a transition to libglade2 so libglade can eventually be removed? libglade2 is the GTK2 version of libglade, so it would have to be a GTK-GTK2 transition. And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in the archive still requires GTK1. It would be great to move them all to GTK2. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 13:04 schrieb Julien BLACHE: We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: eh, wtf, Debian hasn't got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird? omgwtf $DISTRO has them! Uh? If we ship their products under a different name, people will complain, but if we drop them they won't? Strange argumentation... Sebastian -- PGP-Key: http://www.mmweg.rwth-aachen.de/~sebastian.ley/public.key Fingerprint: A46A 753F AEDC 2C01 BE6E F6DB 97E0 3309 9FD6 E3E6 pgpSAOyvuWIOw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:29:22AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this exception for software coming in, why can't we accept this same exception for software derived from our distribution? I don't think we can extend the exception to package name, if only for practical reason. I would say, though, that given the great ease with which one can rebrand Firefox (see below for evidence), which is probably easier than almost any other existing application of comparable size due to the Netscape heritage and their need to rebrand, I don't think that it would be significantly limiting downstream freedoms if we said they had to change the name (or ask us) for *all* modifications. After all, that's what some packages whose licenses have name-change clauses say. An important point of contention is whether the branding affect the package name (the name of the .deb file), because this is a functionnal name and changing it is a burden. If it does, then we might be better off renaming the package to iceweasel even if we keep the firefox branding. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-14 13:48]: libglade2 is the GTK2 version of libglade, so it would have to be a GTK-GTK2 transition. And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in the archive still requires GTK1. It would be great to move them all to GTK2. For anything that uses custom widgets, it's miserable. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote: And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in the archive still requires GTK1. It would be great to move them all to GTK2. Unfortunately it's not that simple. I'm upstream for two packages using GTK1 and I spended some time for investigating how hard would be the move. Even if I would like to switch to GTK2 it would cost so much time that other projects have much higher priority. It is kind of I can perfectly use this software as it is and thus I wished somebody would lend me his time travel device to give me an additional week of live time to port these projects but at current state I see no chance to do this soon (even if I would love to). Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 13:55 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: libglade2 is the GTK2 version of libglade, so it would have to be a GTK-GTK2 transition. And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in the archive still requires GTK1. It would be great to move them all to GTK2. It can be very tricky. The GNOME Team are currently working through a list of all packages using GTK+ 1 which can be dropped from the archive, so we should be able to drop lots of the old libraries. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Julien BLACHE :: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work with the MoFo. The downside to this approach is that the Mozilla Foundation have no good reason to /care/. They're a group that produces free software, but they're not campaigning for freedom. In any case, we can make their software DFSG-free by removing any references to the trademarks. Dropping it entirely wouldn't really help anyone. It seems to me that what the MoFo really cares about is market share, and producing /free/ software comes after that on their list of priorities. I don't even think the restriction to rebrand their software is *really* compatible with the You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients GPL#6 clause. Do *every* source file in the mozilla trees belong to the Mozilla Foundation? We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: eh, wtf, Debian hasn't got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird? omgwtf $DISTRO has them! Maybe my market perception is *very*, *very* different from yours, but IMHO the would be quite the opposite. If we drop their products, the market sees: Debian is without the main FOSS internet suite! and says $DISTRO it is then, ie *we* lose market share. If OTOH we drop their trademarks, our (prospective) users won't even notice, because: (1) if they install or use a live-cd, they will see the browser icon and Iceweasel Web Browser caption, and won't notice, and (2) if they read about Debian before they install/use a live-cd, they will stumble somewhere in the info Debian uses a rebranded version of Firefox called Iceweasel to protect its users (that may want to modify and redistribute the software) from any trademark liability. Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. I agree, to a point. They have reason to protect their assets from evil versions of mozilla, but their current policy is too hard. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
[Jonas Meurer] 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. Nobody is ignoring the Mozilla trademark license. The issue is that Debian is being offered non-transferrable rights to the trademark. And whether not having DFSG-free rights to the *brand* makes the *product* non-free. FWIW, I agree with the proposed extension to DFSG#4: [in terms of distributing software,] Debian will not accept or exercise rights which cannot be granted to Debian's users. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#313595: ITP: htpdate -- daemon to synchronize the local time via HTTP from a webserver
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: htpdate Version : 0.8.2 Upstream Author : Eddy Vervest [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.clevervest.com/htp/development.html * License : GPL Description : daemon to synchronize the local time via HTTP from a webserver Although ntp is a well defined protocol and there are severel clients available, you sometimes can't use any of them, for example since the admin of your firewall is blocking ntp, but surely they don't block HTTP. Since Web-Servers are requested to add a timestamp to webpages they deliver you can extract the specific header and use to synchronize your local clock. Not perfect, but if you use a nearby, fast webserver it should be accurate enough for average users. htpdate can be used either in a run once, set time or as a daemon, which checks the time periodically and synchronizes the local time smoothly. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-vinyamar Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
Scott James Remnant wrote: Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g., buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said manipulate, not build. Why can't you just install the unstable ones? For comparison, the unstable versions of both dak and debbugs *trail* the versions actually used on ftp-master.d.o and bugs.d.o. The recent debootstrap changes are a pretty strong encouragement to use a newer version of apt on ftp-master than is currently in unstable (or experimental for that matter) to release etch, too. For core infrastructure, running the latest working version just makes sense; whether it's released as stable or not. The only reason to delay using features until they're in stable is for users' benefit: eg, if something stops you being able to upgrade to etch from sarge, that would suck. I can't see any particular reason to delay the new source format. Reasons to speed it up, otoh... Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Jun 14, Julien BLACHE [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? Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free software context. Why not? Trademarks are not software, and the mozilla trademark policy is not depriving anybody of freedoms about their code. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. This looks like a bold statement, and should be argumented a bit more if you want people to believe you. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Jun 14, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. Accept MoFo's offer of Debian-specific trademark usage. 4. Try to negotiate some other arrangement with MoFo. I do not believe that shipping Firefox with a different name would serve well us, our users or the cause of software freedom, and I think that the position of MF in granting Debian has been very reasonable. Feel free to try to persuade MF to grant more liberal conditions, but if this is not possible then I think we should continue shipping Firefox under the present terms since I do not believe that trademarks policies are a freedom issue, nor that the DFSG should be applied to them. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#313569: ITP: LinuxTaRT -- The Automatic Random Tagline, a versatile, fast and feature-rich email signature generator
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Colin Tuckley [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: LinuxTaRT Version : 3.07 Upstream Author : Mark Veinot [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://mvgrafx.ath.cx/~vmark/LT/ * License : GPL Description : The Automatic Random Tagline, a versatile, fast and feature-rich email signature generator TaRT features include random taglines, optional daemon functionality, display of current date, custom layout of signature, and special date tagline text. The command line syntax is simple and well explained. LinuxTaRT is designed to be run as a stand-alone daemon, from crontab, or in your login script. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-386 Locale: LANG=en_GB, LC_CTYPE=en_GB (charmap=ISO-8859-1) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:00:02PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Toolchain update to gcc/g++ 4.0 - Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Switch to dependency-based init.d handling -- Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drop libpng2/libpng10-0/libpng3 packages - Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drop libmysqlclient10/libmysqlclient12 packages - Adam Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Consistent LFS support - Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] libpcap0.9 transition - myself (more on that later) Getting rid of circular dependencies - myself Several menu transitions - myself Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Marco :: On Jun 14, Julien BLACHE [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? Agreed. Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free software context. Why not? Trademarks are not software, and the mozilla trademark policy is not depriving anybody of freedoms about their code. I don't think I agree with that; it *does* restrict the creation of derivative works in a way that would be most reasonable. (It would be unreasonable to expect that you could patch Firefox to present itself as Microsoft (R) Internet Explorer (tm), as opposed to Mozilla (R) Firefox (tm)) They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. This looks like a bold statement, and should be argumented a bit more if you want people to believe you. -- HTH, Always, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Eric Dorland wrote: Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. Our priorities are our users and free software Does having the package actually be called firefox or thunderbird make life easier and better for users? I think so. Does the opposite make it worse? I think so. Does calling it firefox or thunderbird hurt free software? It doesn't hurt us -- we're already doing it, it doesn't hurt upstream -- they're happy for us to do it, it doesn't hurt our users as above. Does it hurt Debian derivatives? Depends on the permission -- it seems hard to give Debian permission but not give random people permission to redistribute Debian's deb, which is all most distributors do. Does changing the name hurt free software? It hurts us, by taking away time from other things, it hurts upstream by decreasing their name recognition and providing a bunch of FAQs of the form what's wrong with firefox that Debian doesn't distribute it?. Depending on how much time it takes us to do it right, it might hurt our derivatives even more, by introducing new RC bugs and destabilising the release, and providing a base system that users are less happy with (Why doesn't it come with firefox?). YMMV, of course. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote: And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in the archive still requires GTK1. It would be great to move them all to GTK2. Unfortunately it's not that simple. I'm upstream for two packages using GTK1 and I spended some time for investigating how hard would be the move. Even if I would like to switch to GTK2 it would cost so much time My package gpredict uses GNOME 1 libraries as well as GTK+ 1.2. Upstream doesn't seem to be in a hurry to upgrade; their last release was in February and doesn't appear to have changed anything with regard to the libraries. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as free? (This is a compromise. The Debian Project encourages all authors to not restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) Says it all. Requiring a name change because we apply a security patch or fix a bug crosses the border. It's not like if we were forking their codebase. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Towns :: Eric Dorland wrote: Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. Our priorities are our users and free software Does having the package actually be called firefox or thunderbird make life easier and better for users? I think so. I don't think so. 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, double-click it and voila. As long as it works (and as long as they can install the Macromedia plugins), they don't care. The rest of the world knows Debian renamed Firefox as Iceweasel to escape Mozilla Foundation's arcane trademark license. Does calling it firefox or thunderbird hurt free software? At first, no. But it *does* hurt our users. Why? Because they are confident that getting something from the Debian mirror, modifying it and re-distributing under the same terms is allowed. And they can be burned after some time. And they *will* blame it on Debian. Someone told me there was a maxima if you get a new client, you got *one* new client, if you lose an old client you lost eleven clients (old and prospective)... It would hurt Debian, and as I think Debian is one *big* power in favor of Free Sotware, it hurts Free Software, too. It doesn't hurt us -- we're already doing it, it doesn't hurt upstream -- they're happy for us to do it, it doesn't hurt our They are happy for Debian to do it, but they are *not* happy enough to allow Debian users to do it too. users as above. Does it hurt Debian derivatives? Depends on the permission -- it seems hard to give Debian permission but not give random people permission to redistribute Debian's deb, which is all most distributors do. No, a lot of derivatives will make additional changes in the .deb and not just pass it along. Does changing the name hurt free software? It hurts us, by taking away time from other things, it hurts upstream by Agreed. decreasing their name recognition and providing a bunch of FAQs of the form what's wrong with firefox that Debian doesn't distribute it?. Depending on how much time it takes us to do it right, it Agreed, but this is *their* problem and not ours. might hurt our derivatives even more, by introducing new RC bugs and destabilising the release, and providing a base system that users are less happy with (Why doesn't it come with firefox?). I don't think this question will *ever* happen. YMMV, of course. Yeah. -- HTH, Always, Respectfully, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant parts
How exactly package should be splitted on data and binary parts? Which files should be moved to binary package and which to the in data one? Any standart procedures/recommendations/suggestions? -- Sergey Fedoseev [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Julien BLACHE :: Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: eh, wtf, Debian hasn't got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird? omgwtf $DISTRO has them! Maybe my market perception is *very*, *very* different from yours, but IMHO the would be quite the opposite. Not necessarily. We *will* have to agree on disagreeing, then. If we drop their products, the market sees: Debian is without the main FOSS internet suite! and says $DISTRO it is then, ie *we* lose market share. If we drop their products, we issue a PR explaining why we dropped them. Just like we're about to do with the GFDL'ed docs. And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web browser, not without Mozilla itself. If OTOH we drop their trademarks, our (prospective) users won't even notice, because: (1) if they install or use a live-cd, they will see the browser icon and Iceweasel Web Browser caption, and won't notice, and The icon won't be the firefox or mozilla icon. The name won't be firefox or mozilla. The user will notice. The firefox and the mozilla icons (and and even their brands) are not so-well-known as you are assuming IMHO. My experience (6 years) as a final-user-supporter: they see the thing that looks like a globe, a planet, or has web browser or internet as its caption, web browser interface (forward, back, url, topping the browser panel) appears, they are happy. (2) if they read about Debian before they install/use a live-cd, they will stumble somewhere in the info Debian uses a rebranded version of Firefox called Iceweasel to protect its users (that may want to modify and redistribute the software) from any trademark liability. Don't count on it too much :) In the drop case, they would probably start looking for a firefox/mozilla package for Debian and would eventually end up on a d.o page explaining why the packages were dropped, thanks to the Google Magic (tm). QED. In the rebrand case, they will look for said package and Google will take them to a page saying Firefox is called Iceweasel under debian to protect you from trademark lawsuits, they think oh, good, this Debian fellow is a nice guy helping protect me. -- HTH, Respectfully, Massa
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant parts
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:35:36PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote: How exactly package should be splitted on data and binary parts? Which files should be moved to binary package and which to the in data one? Any standart procedures/recommendations/suggestions? There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to binary package, and architecture independent to data package. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Jun 14, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: YMMV, of course. Thank you for this reality check. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Opening old sarge upgrade bug?
I did my apt-get dist-upgrade today and received the following message: Setting up xlibs-data (4.3.0.dfsg.1-14) ... update-alternatives: internal error: /var/lib/dpkg/alternatives/x-cursor-theme corrupt: missing newline after manflag dpkg: error processing xlibs-data (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 2 It's happened before, it's described exactly in bug #289327. This was merged with #288753 but that is on a package (gtk2-engines-industrial) which is not installed in my case. In any case it was written off as a hardware- or filesystem-related failure. Seems unlikely if two people get the same error on the same file with the same symptoms. Anyway, the bug has been archived and evidently it's not a big problem or more people would have complained. The file /var/lib/dpkg/alternatives/x-cursor-theme was created during an upgrade on Dec 28 2004, two seconds before the alternative for www-browser was installed. The version of xlibs-data I had installed before this one was 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8 which fits with the timeframe of the original submitter. I've looked at the source of update-alternatives and I can't see how the alternatives file could possibly get filled with exactly 191 0xF6's. I don't need this system immediatly so if anyone has any ideas on how to track this problem down. Otherwise I'll just delete the file and continue and write it off as one of those things... Any ideas?
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. 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. That's exactly what I was referring to. JB. -- Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Debian, because code matters more Debian GNU/Linux Developer| http://www.debian.org Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as free? (This is a compromise. The Debian Project encourages all authors to not restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) Says it all. Right. We don't like it, but we think it's free. Requiring a name change because we apply a security patch or fix a bug crosses the border. It's not like if we were forking their codebase. We have permission to apply security patches and fix bugs without changing the name. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant parts
, 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 procedures should exist anyway. For example ones move manpage to binary package and others move it to data package. Who is right? -- Sergey Fedoseev [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
El Martes 14 Junio 2005 16:50, Marco d'Itri escribió: They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. This looks like a bold statement, and should be argumented a bit more if you want people to believe you. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether they care about free software or not. The *fact* is that they produce free software. Debian is not here to be a moral judge of upstreams, the aim is to produce a distribution. 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). I think everything is clear enough. And I think it is quite reasonable that an upstream author asks for a name change for a modified version. Even for security fixes. There is lots of modified versions of programs out there and the upstreams authors are always suffering bug reports that doesn't concern the original version. And if you finally plan to rename Firefox, you should start renaming PHP, unless I missed something... Cesar
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Jun 14, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And if you finally plan to rename Firefox, you should start renaming PHP, unless I missed something... The most disgraceful part of this discussion is that I feel that by holding a double standard we are abusing the good will that MF has showed in trying to negotiate a mutually acceptable trademark policy. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Cesar Martinez Izquierdo :: El Martes 14 Junio 2005 16:50, Marco d'Itri escribió: They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. This looks like a bold statement, and should be argumented a bit more if you want people to believe you. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether they care about free software or not. The *fact* is that they produce free software. Debian is You couldn't be more right. But is it free software after all? not here to be a moral judge of upstreams, the aim is to produce a distribution. 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 *really* distributable by us under GPL#6, no further restrictions? It seems to me that if our users can't customize and compile and distribute Firefox under the terms of the GPL, we are passing along another restriction over those in the GPL. Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under the terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free. I think everything is clear enough. And I think it is quite reasonable that an upstream author asks for a name change for a modified version. Even for security fixes. There is lots of modified versions of programs out there and the upstreams authors are always suffering bug reports that doesn't concern the original version. So, in this paragraph you are basically stating that we *should* rename firefox to save them from such burden. And if you finally plan to rename Firefox, you should start renaming PHP, unless I missed something... If the same restriction applies to PHP, I'm all for it. -- HTH, Massa
Bug#313610: ITP: libnoise -- a portable, open-source, coherent noise-generating library for C++
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Federico Di Gregorio [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: libnoise Version : 0.9.0 Upstream Author : Jason Bevins * URL : http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/ * License : LGPL Description : a portable, open-source, coherent noise-generating library for C++ libnoise is a portable C++ library that is used to generate coherent noise, a type of smoothly-changing noise. libnoise can generate Perlin noise, ridged multifractal noise, and other types of coherent-noise. Coherent noise is often used by graphics programmers to generate natural-looking textures, planetary terrain, and other things. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.6 Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thunderbird Firefox
Hi all! Could someone tell me if Thunderbird and / or Firefox are available for download via apt-get? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Marco :: On Jun 14, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And if you finally plan to rename Firefox, you should start renaming PHP, unless I missed something... The most disgraceful part of this discussion is that I feel that by holding a double standard we are abusing the good will that MF has showed in trying to negotiate a mutually acceptable trademark policy. So, we should not hold a double standard and we shoud honor *every* request to rename things, meaning if this is the case of PHP, do it too. As I mentioned before, I don't believe it's a loss for Debian; I think the other part loses far more. Especially when a simple apt-cache search php dph - Debian version of PHP(TM), renamed because of trademarks would work. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thunderbird Firefox
Robert Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi all! Could someone tell me if Thunderbird and / or Firefox are available for download via apt-get? A question suitable for #debian at freenode (no, not even debian-user should do). $ sudo apt-get -y install mozilla-firefox mozilla-thunderbird -- ZAK B. ELEP [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Registered Linux User #327585 1024D/FA53851D 1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D Debian - When you've got better things to do than to fix a borken system pgpyXMzQO4rHS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant parts
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote: There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to binary package, and architecture independent to data package. I consider some common procedures should exist anyway. For example ones move manpage to binary package and others move it to data package. Who is right? Who moved binary (_architecture_ dependent binary) to -data package? Basically you don't have to split package if there are no architecture dependent data in it (or such data is very small). Maybe you should tell us what program are you going to package. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under the terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free. This is, uh, debated. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo :: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote: There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to binary package, and architecture independent to data package. I consider some common procedures should exist anyway. For example ones move manpage to binary package and others move it to data package. Who is right? Who moved binary (_architecture_ dependent binary) to -data package? Basically you don't have to split package if there are Since when are manpages architecture dependent binaries? no architecture dependent data in it (or such data is very small). Maybe you should tell us what program are you going to package. That would be a good idea. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: eh, wtf, Debian hasn't got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird? omgwtf $DISTRO has them! Maybe my market perception is *very*, *very* different from yours, but IMHO the would be quite the opposite. Not necessarily. If we drop their products, the market sees: Debian is without the main FOSS internet suite! and says $DISTRO it is then, ie *we* lose market share. If we drop their products, we issue a PR explaining why we dropped them. Just like we're about to do with the GFDL'ed docs. If OTOH we drop their trademarks, our (prospective) users won't even notice, because: (1) if they install or use a live-cd, they will see the browser icon and Iceweasel Web Browser caption, and won't notice, and The icon won't be the firefox or mozilla icon. The name won't be firefox or mozilla. The user will notice. (2) if they read about Debian before they install/use a live-cd, they will stumble somewhere in the info Debian uses a rebranded version of Firefox called Iceweasel to protect its users (that may want to modify and redistribute the software) from any trademark liability. Don't count on it too much :) In the drop case, they would probably start looking for a firefox/mozilla package for Debian and would eventually end up on a d.o page explaining why the packages were dropped, thanks to the Google Magic (tm). JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. It's now nearly six months I'd say that it is a clear violation of the DFSG, not only in spirit. So for hopefully the last time I'd like to get people's opinion on this before I take any action. Am I being too pedantic? I'd also love to hear how Ubuntu is handling this (not to fan the flames, just to get a different perspective). The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work with the MoFo. Don't be so militant. Firefox is clearly a popular and useful program. There's no reason to be so extreme. By the way, what is the status wrt OpenOffice.org, which has the same kind of issue ? I'm not sure, I don't think the issues are entirely the same. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimares wrote: But is non-rebranded Firefox *really* distributable by us under GPL#6, no further restrictions? It seems to me that if our users can't customize and compile and distribute Firefox under the terms of the GPL, we are passing along another restriction over those in the GPL. Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under the terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free. /usr/share/doc/mozilla-firefox/copyright would seem to indicate Debian distributes Firefox under the MPL. -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) 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 Gecko-based browsers ? Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free software context. Why not? Trademarks are not software, and the mozilla trademark policy is not depriving anybody of freedoms about their code. *Their* trademark policy. Maybe the emphasis should have been there in the first place. They don't care about free software. They don't care about distributors/vendors. This looks like a bold statement, and should be argumented a bit more if you want people to believe you. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/008180.html JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)
==--==--==--== Hello all Debian folks! First of all I would like to congratulate all Debian developers and maintainers for releasing sarge. Good job! (and a big relief for all of you, I guess) Having a Debian installed on 10 Sun Blade boxes and helping a bit on debian-boot with debian-installer I can safely say that I am also concerned with the future of Debian. Lately I have spotted an interesting entry in Ian Murdock's Weblog (http://ianmurdock.com/?p=239), where he points out that in order to get a better user recognition and vendor support some _naming_ changes may be required. After reading the post I can say that indeed there are some ideas worth to be at least considered. What I am referring to is that not only stable / testing / sid repositories are enough. Maybe just after a little bit of tweaking Debian could get some more profiles called server / desktop also? What this means for developers, is to link (or understand) such profiles as server == stable, and desktop == testing. On the other hand, maybe some more profiles would be required, such as: stable-server, stable-desktop, testing-server and testing-desktop? Almost all Linux users would clearly recognize from this naming scheme what is what and what for. I send this post to debian-devel just in order to notify you about these ideas. Think about it, could you? There are some more good ideas in the article. Just see it for yourself. Friendly, Wiktor Wandachowicz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as free? (This is a compromise. The Debian Project encourages all authors to not restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) Says it all. Right. We don't like it, but we think it's free. Requiring a name change because we apply a security patch or fix a bug crosses the border. It's not like if we were forking their codebase. We have permission to apply security patches and fix bugs without changing the name. We (as in Debian) may have the permission, but that permission does not flow downstream. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Eric Dorland :: * Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work with the MoFo. Don't be so militant. Firefox is clearly a popular and useful program. There's no reason to be so extreme. AFAICS the Debian Way would be to re-brand. Caring for the wishes of our uses (to have a mozilla-like browser in the distro) and to the wishes of upstream. By the way, what is the status wrt OpenOffice.org, which has the same kind of issue ? I'm not sure, I don't think the issues are entirely the same. Can anyone elaborate on: (1) is the MPL DFSG-free? (2) is mozilla-firefox distributed under the MPL? (3) what is the problem with OOo? (4) what is the problem with PHP? Thank you, -- Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Jun 14, Julien BLACHE [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 Gecko-based browsers ? For most users they are not an acceptable solution, since they tend to not support the same feature of Firefox (the most important being extensions). -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
El Martes 14 Junio 2005 18:54, Humberto Massa Guimarães escribió: 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 *really* distributable by us under GPL#6, no further restrictions? It seems to me that if our users can't customize and compile and distribute Firefox under the terms of the GPL, we are passing along another restriction over those in the GPL. Yes, they can customize and compile and distribute Firefox, but they need to pay attention to the trademark issues, as well as patent issues and any other law that may apply in their country. I think everything is clear enough. And I think it is quite reasonable that an upstream author asks for a name change for a modified version. Even for security fixes. There is lots of modified versions of programs out there and the upstreams authors are always suffering bug reports that doesn't concern the original version. 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* users from such burden. A lot of people would get greatly confused with a different name for Firefox, even if you don't think so. *Indirect* users such as derived distributions should check the licenses and other trademark or patent issues before start distributing anything. It's their task to check it. We can help them if we create Debian packages which are easy to rename, but we shouldn't confuse the rest of the users just to make this task easier to derived distributions. And if you finally plan to rename Firefox, you should start renaming PHP, unless I missed something... If the same restriction applies to PHP, I'm all for it. Oh yes, it would be funny. I've programmed a webpage in PZP but it doesn't render correctly in Littlefox. When should we start the project Debian-rest of the world branding reference? Regards, César
Re: Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)
* Wiktor Wandachowicz :: Hello all Debian folks! First of all I would like to congratulate all Debian developers and maintainers for releasing sarge. Good job! (and a big relief for all of you, I guess) Having a Debian installed on 10 Sun Blade boxes and helping a bit on debian-boot with debian-installer I can safely say that I am also concerned with the future of Debian. Lately I have spotted an interesting entry in Ian Murdock's Weblog (http://ianmurdock.com/?p=239), where he points out that in order to get a better user recognition and vendor support some _naming_ changes may be required. After reading the post I can say that indeed there are some ideas worth to be at least considered. What I am referring to is that not only stable / testing / sid repositories are enough. Maybe just after a little bit of tweaking Debian could get some more profiles called server / desktop also? What this means for developers, is to link (or understand) such profiles as server == stable, and desktop == testing. On the other hand, maybe some more profiles would be required, such as: stable-server, stable-desktop, testing-server and testing-desktop? IMHO, there is a series of (serious) problems in such a plan, such as: * testing and unstable are not installable by non-tech-folk, all the time, really. There can be times where they are, but there are some times they are not. They break. * we should not really multiply (space, time, bandwidth) needed for our mirrors; right now, some archs are endangered because of such hefty requirements. * we *do* have, after all, tasks to install desktops and (some, specialized?) servers, without having to resort to creating another 30G of repositories. * finally, the infrastructure necessary to do what you ask for is really a job better done by specialized derived distros (such as LinEx, Ubuntu, even Ian's own Progeny) -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Monday 13 June 2005 23.00, John Hasler wrote: Jesus Climent writes: Exactly my point, what impedes an admin to set some defaults wether the system comes as it comes now or with some predefined options and settings? Nothing, except for the fact that most admins haven't the foggiest idea how to do that. Thus the suggestion that the default runlevels be what most people expect them to be. The people you probably mean when you write admin (with the quotes) usually, in my experience, go into blank-stare-mode when I mention the word 'runlevel' or even 'command line'. I guess you can count me to the the people who care will have their own ideas anyway, 90% of all others don't know anything and so wouldn't be able to take advantage of any special runlevel configuration fraction. cheers -- vbi -- Today is Setting Orange, the 19th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3171 pgp5HgMg0W1UA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:25:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I think this argument is moderately persuasive. DFSG 4 allows a license to require a name change on modification. If Debian is granted an extra permission to keep the name the same, but that freedom is not passed on to downstream recipients, is the license free? It could be argued that DFSG 8 forbids that, but if Debian isn't granted that freedom then the license /is/ free. I think any interpretation of the DFSG that results in a free license becoming non-free if extra permissions are granted (even if those permissions are only to some people) ought to be incorrect. While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need to look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take any package in main, modify it, and further redistribute it? If yes, then the package can remain in main, and is free; if not, then the package is not free. Freedoms granted to users are what is important, not just freedoms granted to Debian. If it turns out that we rename the program (to, say, debian-firefox), and that grants our users the freedom to modify and further distribute the renamed binary; but not renaming robs them of this freedom, then our course is clear. manoj -- Survey says... Richard Dawson, weenie, on Family Feud Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s
Sergey Fedoseev [EMAIL PROTECTED] no architecture dependent data in it (or such data is very small). Maybe you should tell us what program are you going to package. That would be a good idea. I'm not going to package program...yet. There are many packages already splitted. And I believe binary part of most of them can be reduced (and it can be reduced not only by moving manpages). And to not file a bug to every package I want this to be discussed there. For example ones move manpage to binary package and others move it to data package. Who is right? So who is right? The praxis is, IIRC, only separate -bin and -data if there is a good reason. For instance, if -data is *very* big AND is a good portion of the original package AND is arch-indep, then you have good reason to split the package. I think the policy does NOT allow for the manpages to go in a separate package from the binary, because the general rule is that if you can execute something, you can access the manpage. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this exception for software coming in, why can't we accept this same exception for software derived from our distribution? This is basically our position. I include below, for reference, an email I sent to Eric 24 hours ago in response to his request to settle this issue. It outlines a rough shape of an agreement which I hope we can reach. Gerv, I'm not sure what happened, but I never saw this email. It might be beneficial though to have an agreement with MoFo that allows for downstreams of Debian to also use the name, as long as they only modify the package in ways similar to Debian. If you have a downstream that just copies, or copies-and-fixes-bugs, this would surely be just as acceptable to MoFo, right? [snip] Previous email to Eric: Original Message Subject: Re: Firefox Trademark Issues Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:15:27 +0100 From: Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: mozilla.org To: Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric Dorland wrote: Sarge is released, so the time is ripe to figure out what I'm going to do. This issue has been dragging out like 6 months now, so lets hash it out. OK. One thing I remember being a concern last time was the level of difficulty of rebranding Firefox. You may have noticed that the Firefox 1.1 preview release has been rebranded as Deer Park. The work went on in this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294399 There were a few false starts, but I think it's clear that fundamentally, rebranding Firefox is not a complicated or lengthy operation. That's very good news. No matter how things work out, having an escape plan is the right thing to do. Thanks. Having said that, is it possible to come to an agreement along the following lines? - The Mozilla Foundation gives Debian permission to use the Firefox logo and brand name. Using the logo is not possible, as it is not licensed under a free license. - That permission is revocable, but not for shipped or frozen versions of Debian. - It's the Foundation's responsibility to make sure the Debian version meets our requirements; if we have issues, we sort them out with the maintainer in the first instance. - The requirements in question (or, probably, a set of principles or something like that) would be the result of a discussion between the Foundation and the maintainer. - The permission to ship copies of Debian's version extends to everyone. - The permission to ship modified versions of Debian's version does not extend to everyone; if they make changes, they have to rebrand or ask permission. This is analogous to the clause which is found in some BSD licences, stating that modified packages of software are required to have a different name. As noted above, this is not a difficult exercise. Can we make this fly? This agreement is not evil, but internally we have to work out whether we can make this sort of agreement under the DFSG. If you came back with something non-Debian specific and still gave us the ability to do the things we need to, then there probably wouldn't be any debate. -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Matthew Garrett :: Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under the terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free. This is, uh, debated. Is it? I seemed to recall that the MPL contained a choice-of-venue clause, and that -legal deemed choice-of-venue as non-free, because imposes a burden on the licensee in case of litigation. -- Massa
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:01:58 +0200, Jesus Climent [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:25:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 01:13:16AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: to find their own (sometimes flawed) solution to a very common problem. Years using Linux: 10. Times I've absolutely needed an X-less boot when an XDM was installed: 0. How common was that problem you were trying to solve, again? Years using linux: 11 (argh, or 12, i cannot even remember) Times I needed the above discussed feature: several. That common is common enough? Not really. There is nothing to indicate that how you fashioned your run levels would make sense for, say, me. People whoi really want tailored run-levels often have very definite ideas about how these run-levels would be tailored; it is unlikely that a predefined solution designed by committee in Debian would suit their needs, and they would have to roll their own, anyway, and a predefined solution would just get in their way. _Why_ did you not create you own run level schema, BTW, if you have indeed needed them so often? (I haven't felt that itch yet, or I would have; creating differentiated run levels is not exactly rocket science). manoj -- The Schizophrenic: An Unauthorized Autobiography Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
** Cesar Martinez Izquierdo :: No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save our *direct* users from such burden. A lot of people would get greatly confused with a different name for Firefox, even if you don't think so. *Indirect* users such as derived distributions should check the licenses and other trademark or patent issues before start distributing anything. It's their task to check it. We can help them if we create Debian packages which are easy to rename, but we shouldn't confuse the rest of the users just to make this task easier to derived distributions. The problem I see with your two paragraphs above is that there is not, and there should not be, real difference between direct and indirect users of free software. Free software is supposed to be distributed freely for anyone without discrimination of field of endeavour, and IMHO this includes making a derived distro. And, to top it, Our priorities are Free Software and our users, not ... and our *direct* users. And if you finally plan to rename Firefox, you should start renaming PHP, unless I missed something... If the same restriction applies to PHP, I'm all for it. Oh yes, it would be funny. I've programmed a webpage in PZP but it doesn't render correctly in Littlefox. When should we start the project Debian-rest of the world branding reference? Whenever upstream asks us to do it or permits our downstreams not to do it. At least IMHO. -- HTH, most Respectfully, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * Eric Dorland: 1. Completely ignore their Trademark Policy document and let MoFo come to us if they're not happy with our use of the marks. This is the policy we have adopted with PHP, Apache and similarly-licensed software. It's basically the only choice when we want to continue to distribute software such as phpGroupWare or Apache::Request. That's true, but in Mozilla's case they have a document that is very specific about what can and can't be done. PHP and Apache don't have such documents as far as I can see, so it's easier to take a passive approach. In the Firefox case, the trademark situation is extremely murky because in many countries, the Mozilla Foundation doesn't even own that trademark WRT to computer programs (examples: Germany, United Kingdom). Looks like someone didn't do his or her homework before choosing the name. 8-( -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s
, 14/06/2005 13:49 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimares : The praxis is, IIRC, only separate -bin and -data if there is a good reason. For instance, if -data is *very* big AND is a good portion of the original package AND is arch-indep, then you have good reason to split the package. I think the policy does NOT allow for the manpages to go in a separate package from the binary, because the general rule is that if you can execute something, you can access the manpage. But in most cases binary package depends on data package. So if you install binary you will have manpage anyway, even it is in data package. -- Sergey Fedoseev [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [Jonas Meurer] 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. Nobody is ignoring the Mozilla trademark license. The issue is that Debian is being offered non-transferrable rights to the trademark. And whether not having DFSG-free rights to the *brand* makes the *product* non-free. FWIW, I agree with the proposed extension to DFSG#4: [in terms of distributing software,] Debian will not accept or exercise rights which cannot be granted to Debian's users. Proposed extension? Is this actually been on the table before? -- Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
