Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[ If you're being impatient about resolving this, please see the bottom ] [ of the email for an imporant bit of information... ] [ snip ] On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > What makes a suitable name? Please be specific. If you don't know, I > > > think you should request this information from the NetBSD Foundation. > > > > As far as I can tell, anything which does not use the bare word 'NetBSD' > > as part of it's name, but I certainly can request clarification from Mr. > > Mewburn and The NetBSD Foundation about that. > > As I understand it, TNF's view of what dilutes a trademark is > considerably narrower than that of U.S. courts. It may be wise to > obtain a trademark license explicitly authorizing this usage. I have sent Mr. Mewburn an email requesting both a clarification of what The NetBSD Foundation would consider acceptable, in a name, and the rationale behind it, and questioning the possibly of looking into some form of trademark agreement, particularly one which would allow us to use something that might otherwise violate the trademark, but still be a sufficiently distinct name for TNF to be content. However, see below. > > I think that is largely a reflection of "nobody had any disagreement on > > the principle, or a better suggestion for the formal port name", combined > > with the fact that it triggered reviewing some of the haphazard naming > > conventions with a critical eye, and making sure that they were reasonable > > and rational. > > > > The thread is, indeed, split into two interleaved parts, and the > > non-technical part is almost empty. > > I don't have a problem with the technical issues being grappled with. > In fact, I'm glad they are. But the fact that the technical part got a > good amount of attention doesn't mean the non-technical aspect has been > adequately grappled with. And it was on non-technical grounds that Mr. > Newburn made his request -- "trademark dilution" is not a technical > concept, but a legal one. Indeed; I did not mean to imply that it should have been sufficient, only summarize what folks would find in the thread if they read it - which is to say, no objections to renaming, and no real discussion of trademark issues at all. (Notably, the fact that we had no real discussion is part of why I posted it to -devel, rather than just sending it to the project officials as a notification/request.) > BSD is also still a trademark, but I was unable to find any information > about its licensing, or even whether it is still actively defended. Hmmm. A good point, though one might reasonable wonder if 'NetBSD' would not, itself, infringe on this if it were being actively enforced. My impression is that it is not being actively enforced, but I make no claim to having done an exhaustive search, or spoken to the current trademark holders. > > > > 4) The Debian port name will become 'Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386)'[1]. > > > > > > Well, no offense, but that's ugly as hell, and is going to square the > > > amount of confusion people experience when trying to decode our OS > > > names. > > > > Agreed, unfortunately - it is, and I suspect it may well. Suggestions for > > better naming welcome, of course (or even a direction to go in). > > We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot > is the cute and devilish "daemon"), with the first letter shared by the > demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor. > > Thus: > > Debian FreeBSD -> Debian Forneus (BSD) > Debian NetBSD -> Debian Naberius (BSD) > Debian OpenBSD -> Debian Orobos (BSD) > > I got these names from the Wikipedia http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specific_demons_and_types_of_demons>. > > Moreover, none of these names are currently registered with the USPTO, > so we'd be set in that department. This may well be a solution to many problems in one go; it also happens to be one I like, but then, I've used that same reference for picking hostnames on the in-house consulting company's network. So I may be biased. More on this below. > > I believe (note: personal view) that the core is a perceived difference > > between the bare word 'NetBSD', which has, prior to this port, implied a > > kernel, libc, *and* userland of a specific form, and a variant of that > > name which is recognizeable, but distinctive enough to not cause confusion > > between their "product" and what we intend to produce. > > My feeble understanding of U.S. trademark law leads me to believe that > the *more* similar our product is to theirs, the more grounds they have > for being able to argue that we're "diluting" the name, because we're > promoting marketplace confusion. As far as I understand it, that seems correct. Certainly we're close enough that it doesn't seem like an un
Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote: > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote: >> > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote: >> >> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3 >> >> > at all. >> >> >> >> And that (together with the intention of the license expressed in >> >> Preamble) seems to be the only reason why Section 2 cannot be >> >> interpreted as permitting to distribute binaries. There are no direct >> >> arguments. Sadly... >> >> > You still need section 3 if you want to distribute modified binaries >> > and remain sane, >> >> Why? If you can distribute some binaries under Section 2 that means >> that there is no requirement of source form in it. Then you can >> distribute any binaries under Section 2. > Well, that is why I put in the "remain sane" part. Ah, that was your agreement with the absence of direct arguments:-) > If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you > can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a > particular kind of modification (compilation), and Section 2 allows > any kind of modification. IMHO there is no such a clear division: Section 2 is about any form (or only source form) while Section 3 is about executable form. Section 3 is about distribution of executable form and it doesn't talk about modification at all. All permissions to modify are in Section 2. Thus, when distributing binaries compiled from sources, the compilation is under Section 2 and the distribution is under Section 3. That's part of the original confusion--requirement of source form in Section 2 applies only to distribution, not to modification. > Distributing binaries under Section 2 probably means > editting the binaries with a hex editor. You also need to have the > rights to distribute everything in the binary under the GPL. With > non-free compilers, that may be a problem. With gcc, that probably > means more hex editing to include the FSF, HP, SGI, etc. copyrights. The only difference in distribution under Section 2 and under Section 3 is the requirement for sources. > However, it does now seem like a hole in the copyleft. While possible > in principle, I won't stay awake at nights worrying about it. As > Henning said, it is really just an oversight. The intent is clear, > which may sway a court more than the explicit wording. The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a license to trump each other? Sasha
Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote: >> Sure source is a big plus:-) But there are many "binaries" where the >> lack of source is not that fatal -- bitmap pictures generated from >> layered source, PostScript/PDF generated from TeX, info generated >> from texinfo, etc. > In all of these cases, we should be seeing the original source, rather > than the resultant binary if the work is released under the GPL. In > cases where it isn't, the resultant work has either been removed, or > the source has been provided. [If you are aware of additional cases, > please file bugs and/or refer the parties to debian-legal.] Let's consider an example--gsfonts. That's Type1 fonts contributed by URW (http://www.urwpp.de/). They are in main and they are under the GPL. Do you think that .pfb files are really the source? I surmise that the real source is in the internal format of IKARUS, their own font editor. Is that fatal? The same probably applies to any fonts contributed by big typefoundries. Sasha
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 09:28:12AM +0430, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Legally speaking, you're right. Now, on more practical grounds, I do > > not think that the NetBSD Foundation threatened to sue us. > I didn't say they did. They did identify a legal theory for doing so in > the future, though. It's not like there is a common law of trademark > dilution, or a "natural right" of trademarks. Would you at least consider that possibility that they might have meant exactly what they said: "We're somewhat worried that if someday we have to defend our trademark against a real villain, then the villain may be able to get off the hook by pointing to Debian/FreeBSD. Could we work together on finding another name that will let us sleep tighter?" Just because the fear they related *could* be used as grounds for a lawsuit doesn't mean that it's not real. > I think the polite thing to do, if one has no intention of suing > someone, is not to speculate to a person's face about what the > thrust of your court complaint might be. How would you expect them to that, if you insist of reading the mere mention of why they are uneasy as a veiled lawsuit threat? Should they just say: "We humbly suggest that you change your name, but we cannot tell you why, because that would sound like a lawsuit threat?" (BTW, to me it's immediately clear that it can't be a threat, because they know that we know that a threat would be completely empty, because we know that they know that they would earn an ocean of bad karma if they actually attacked another majour open-source project through the courts.) > The TNF has made it clear enough that they feel they have legal remedies > at their disposal if we don't handle their request in a manner to their > liking. I think you're seing spectres. -- Henning Makholm "... and that Greek, Thucydides"
Re: Status of new LPPL version?
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:09:37PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > does anybody know what is going to happen with regard to LPPL-1.3, and > in which timeline? The latest mails I found were > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00206.html > (a new draft) > > and two analyses by Branden Robinson, with one follow-up by Frank > Mittelbach. > > I would be glad to be pointed to some place where I can find further > information on that. The actual reason why I looked for it is that I am > thinking of incorporating some code from a GPL'ed LaTeX add-on package > into mine, but do not want to license mine under GPL, but rather under a > DFSG-free LPPL. I guess it will be much easier to convince the author to > re-license his package if I can tell him that LPPL is also DFSG-free. As far as I know, the new license hasn't actually been attached to anything yet. You'd probably need to contact Frank Mittelbach for a status update. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 09:28:12AM +0430, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0500, > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 126 lines which said: > > > Debian either needs a trademark license from the NetBSD Foundation > > for use of the "NetBSD" mark, or it does not. > > Legally speaking, you're right. Now, on more practical grounds, I do > not think that the NetBSD Foundation threatened to sue us. I didn't say they did. They did identify a legal theory for doing so in the future, though. It's not like there is a common law of trademark dilution, or a "natural right" of trademarks. I think the polite thing to do, if one has no intention of suing someone, is not to speculate to a person's face about what the thrust of your court complaint might be. The TNF has made it clear enough that they feel they have legal remedies at their disposal if we don't handle their request in a manner to their liking. That's enough to get the legally-minded members of the Debian Project involved, IMO. > I believe that they feared confusion and asked politely, as an humble > request from fellow free software developers, to consider a change in > the name. Yes, they did that. They also, if Joel Baker's representations as to the content of the communication are accurate, included a statement inviting us to make the inference that they have ways of compelling our compliance if the courteous approach doesn't work. As I said above, I think that's rude. It may be a rudeness that they feel they were forced to indulge due to the way U.S. trademark law works, but that doesn't make it any less of a discourtesy. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I don't feel they're acting *irrationally*. We, the Debian Project, have made similar requests of people using the word "Debian". At least recently, our communications have included the hint of the iron fist inside the velvet glove, just as the message Joel Baker received did. It's the way the trademark game is played. Should we go into hysterics? No. Neither should we pretend that the threat of legal recourse is not present. > I do not think debian-legal is concerned: it is not an issue of being > right with trademark law, it's an issue of not pissing off NetBSD > people for no good reason. Sounds like it's both to me. I think you are fundamentally misreading the situation. Pretending a legal threat is absent when it is not is a good way to get a very nasty surprise when someone decides to up the ante. I suggest that the Debian Project not allow ourselves to be taken by surprise in this situation. -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux |people as true, by the wise as [EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > [ Adding -legal to the Cc; it may become inappropriate for -devel, at ] > [ some point, in which case folks should remove the -devel Cc. The -bsd ] > [ Cc should probably remain no matter what, as this could potentially ] > [ affect any of the BSD ports.] I've still got some -devel-relevant stuff here, so I'm preserving that list in the headers for the moment. > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I checked, and I don't see the *specific* grounds for the request > > explicated anywhere. > > I guess it depends on precisely what you mean by specific grounds, in this > case. If you mean 'specific accusations of dilution of trademark', then I > don't believe there have been any. No, I mean a specific description of how "Debian GNU/NetBSD" dilutes, or risks diluting, the trademark but "Debian GNU/KNetBSD" does not. I can expect a phone call (or worse) from a certain very large company if I go into soft drink business with a product called "Branden's KCoca-Cola" just as easily as I can if I call it "Branden's Coca-Cola". FYI, the serial number of the "NetBSD" mark according to the U.S. PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) is 78025507. > > What makes a suitable name? Please be specific. If you don't know, I > > think you should request this information from the NetBSD Foundation. > > As far as I can tell, anything which does not use the bare word 'NetBSD' > as part of it's name, but I certainly can request clarification from Mr. > Mewburn and The NetBSD Foundation about that. As I understand it, TNF's view of what dilutes a trademark is considerably narrower than that of U.S. courts. It may be wise to obtain a trademark license explicitly authorizing this usage. > I think that is largely a reflection of "nobody had any disagreement on > the principle, or a better suggestion for the formal port name", combined > with the fact that it triggered reviewing some of the haphazard naming > conventions with a critical eye, and making sure that they were reasonable > and rational. > > The thread is, indeed, split into two interleaved parts, and the > non-technical part is almost empty. I don't have a problem with the technical issues being grappled with. In fact, I'm glad they are. But the fact that the technical part got a good amount of attention doesn't mean the non-technical aspect has been adequately grappled with. And it was on non-technical grounds that Mr. Newburn made his request -- "trademark dilution" is not a technical concept, but a legal one. BSD is also still a trademark, but I was unable to find any information about its licensing, or even whether it is still actively defended. > > > 4) The Debian port name will become 'Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386)'[1]. > > > > Well, no offense, but that's ugly as hell, and is going to square the > > amount of confusion people experience when trying to decode our OS > > names. > > Agreed, unfortunately - it is, and I suspect it may well. Suggestions for > better naming welcome, of course (or even a direction to go in). We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot is the cute and devilish "daemon"), with the first letter shared by the demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor. Thus: Debian FreeBSD -> Debian Forneus (BSD) Debian NetBSD -> Debian Naberius (BSD) Debian OpenBSD -> Debian Orobos (BSD) I got these names from the Wikipedia http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specific_demons_and_types_of_demons>. Moreover, none of these names are currently registered with the USPTO, so we'd be set in that department. > I believe (note: personal view) that the core is a perceived difference > between the bare word 'NetBSD', which has, prior to this port, implied a > kernel, libc, *and* userland of a specific form, and a variant of that > name which is recognizeable, but distinctive enough to not cause confusion > between their "product" and what we intend to produce. My feeble understanding of U.S. trademark law leads me to believe that the *more* similar our product is to theirs, the more grounds they have for being able to argue that we're "diluting" the name, because we're promoting marketplace confusion. After all, if everybody *knows* that Debian NetBSD is quite different from TNF's NetBSD, then it's more difficult to claim that there is confusion. > > Debian either needs a trademark license from the NetBSD Foundation for > > use of the "NetBSD" mark, or it does not. If we do, then our hands are > > tied and we might as well ask them to tell us what they want it called, > > and what the terms of use are. Since the Debian Project doesn't legally > > exist, this will probably have to go through SPI. If we don't need a > > trademark license, then I don't understand why they've grounded their > > request for a name
Re: Bug#223819: RFA: murasaki -- another HotPlug Agent
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > | The problem is that a Debian package has not the right to modify > | automaticaly things under the /etc dir. That means that murasaki > | itself is not allowed to write anything in /etc/murasaki/*. [...] > | -From the Debian policy : > | "Note that a package should not modify a dpkg-handled conffile in its > | maintainer scripts. Doing this will lead to dpkg giving the user > | confusing and possibly dangerous options for conffile update when the > | package is upgraded. " > > That has nothing to do with what the program *itself* does to files > that are *not conffiles*. But be aware that if you use dh_installdeb, all files installed in /etc will be flagged as confiles: ,dh_installdeb(1) | In V3 compatibility mode and higher, all files in the etc/ directory | in a package will auto matically be flagged as conffiles by this | program, so there is no need to list them manually in | package.conffiles. ` If there's no way to override this, one can instead copy them there in postinst. Bye, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
