Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard writes: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:26:26AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office, > > Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers. > > No, your metaphor is broken. Those are "new and exciting lighters." A > lighter will have a button in a simlar place to a bic, it will have a > fuel chamber in a similar place to a bic. Each of those applications (except perhaps GNU Emacs, whose history I do not know) is intentionally designed to resemble and act like software that existed before. They each have functional differences from their predecessor, but an image of a lighter is functionally different from a lighter, so please elaborate on why the ligher image is bad but those applications are not. Would be uncomfortable if Debian included an image of Uncle Sam in a free clipart package? Or should Debian use some new and creative alternative? Michael Poole
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:26:26AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office, > Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers. No, your metaphor is broken. Those are "new and exciting lighters." A lighter will have a button in a simlar place to a bic, it will have a fuel chamber in a similar place to a bic.
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: >> (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package. > > It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of > other people's designs as "original clip art." > > It is exciting when someone uploads a new cool lighter design as clip > art. It's lame when somebody uploads a trace of a Bic -- something the > main feature of it is it's almost exactly like something else. Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office, Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard writes: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:26:26AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office, > > Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers. > > No, your metaphor is broken. Those are "new and exciting lighters." A > lighter will have a button in a simlar place to a bic, it will have a > fuel chamber in a similar place to a bic. Each of those applications (except perhaps GNU Emacs, whose history I do not know) is intentionally designed to resemble and act like software that existed before. They each have functional differences from their predecessor, but an image of a lighter is functionally different from a lighter, so please elaborate on why the ligher image is bad but those applications are not. Would be uncomfortable if Debian included an image of Uncle Sam in a free clipart package? Or should Debian use some new and creative alternative? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:26:26AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office, > Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers. No, your metaphor is broken. Those are "new and exciting lighters." A lighter will have a button in a simlar place to a bic, it will have a fuel chamber in a similar place to a bic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: >> (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package. > > It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of > other people's designs as "original clip art." > > It is exciting when someone uploads a new cool lighter design as clip > art. It's lame when somebody uploads a trace of a Bic -- something the > main feature of it is it's almost exactly like something else. Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office, Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package. It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of other people's designs as "original clip art." It is exciting when someone uploads a new cool lighter design as clip art. It's lame when somebody uploads a trace of a Bic -- something the main feature of it is it's almost exactly like something else. cf. Lindows
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard writes: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of > > understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even > > remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely > > licensing the result. > > So package the Golden Arches. Like I said -- it's the intellecutal and > creative laziness of including them. I can't imagine why anybody would > *want* to look at them. How deriviative and uninspired. If you want such an image in Debian, work with someone to package it. If you do not want it in Debian, do not bother. Either way, kindly stop ordering others to package it. > Plus it's icky to see people get away with anything they can possibly > get away with WRT intellecutal property. Create brand new things and > give them away. Create a new and exciting image of a lighter, just > don't hold up your Bic and trace it. The point of Debian is to provide useful free software to users. I know of only three requirements for a Debian package: (a) the package must satisfy the DFSG; and (b) Debian and mirror operators may legally distribute the package; (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package. Notice there is no reference to or implication of "getting away with" anything. So far you have not made a plausible argument as to why the clip art package fails any of those requirements. While copyright law narrowly defines fair use, trademark law narrowly defines restricted use. See 15 USC 1114 and 15 USC 1125 for details. > It's mostly disappointing. It is more than disappointing when people attempt FUD, especially in the face of repeated explanations and corrections from others. Michael Poole
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of > understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even > remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely > licensing the result. So package the Golden Arches. Like I said -- it's the intellecutal and creative laziness of including them. I can't imagine why anybody would *want* to look at them. How deriviative and uninspired. Plus it's icky to see people get away with anything they can possibly get away with WRT intellecutal property. Create brand new things and give them away. Create a new and exciting image of a lighter, just don't hold up your Bic and trace it. It's mostly disappointing.
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth >> > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart. >> >> File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer. > > Well, my respect for the originality of FOSS is diminished by the fact > that some people value having a image of Pac-Man as An Original Work. That is the one image that was generally agreed should possibly go. > I'm seeing an example of people getting away whatever they can possibly > get away with in gray areas. That's exactly why I grew to revile > Microsoft. These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely licensing the result. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package. It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of other people's designs as "original clip art." It is exciting when someone uploads a new cool lighter design as clip art. It's lame when somebody uploads a trace of a Bic -- something the main feature of it is it's almost exactly like something else. cf. Lindows -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard writes: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of > > understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even > > remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely > > licensing the result. > > So package the Golden Arches. Like I said -- it's the intellecutal and > creative laziness of including them. I can't imagine why anybody would > *want* to look at them. How deriviative and uninspired. If you want such an image in Debian, work with someone to package it. If you do not want it in Debian, do not bother. Either way, kindly stop ordering others to package it. > Plus it's icky to see people get away with anything they can possibly > get away with WRT intellecutal property. Create brand new things and > give them away. Create a new and exciting image of a lighter, just > don't hold up your Bic and trace it. The point of Debian is to provide useful free software to users. I know of only three requirements for a Debian package: (a) the package must satisfy the DFSG; and (b) Debian and mirror operators may legally distribute the package; (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package. Notice there is no reference to or implication of "getting away with" anything. So far you have not made a plausible argument as to why the clip art package fails any of those requirements. While copyright law narrowly defines fair use, trademark law narrowly defines restricted use. See 15 USC 1114 and 15 USC 1125 for details. > It's mostly disappointing. It is more than disappointing when people attempt FUD, especially in the face of repeated explanations and corrections from others. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of > understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even > remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely > licensing the result. So package the Golden Arches. Like I said -- it's the intellecutal and creative laziness of including them. I can't imagine why anybody would *want* to look at them. How deriviative and uninspired. Plus it's icky to see people get away with anything they can possibly get away with WRT intellecutal property. Create brand new things and give them away. Create a new and exciting image of a lighter, just don't hold up your Bic and trace it. It's mostly disappointing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth >> > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart. >> >> File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer. > > Well, my respect for the originality of FOSS is diminished by the fact > that some people value having a image of Pac-Man as An Original Work. That is the one image that was generally agreed should possibly go. > I'm seeing an example of people getting away whatever they can possibly > get away with in gray areas. That's exactly why I grew to revile > Microsoft. These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely licensing the result. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth > > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart. > > File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer. Well, my respect for the originality of FOSS is diminished by the fact that some people value having a image of Pac-Man as An Original Work. The fact that anybody finds this desirable is the most dissapointing thing. I'm seeing an example of people getting away whatever they can possibly get away with in gray areas. That's exactly why I grew to revile Microsoft.
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart. File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth > > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart. > > File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer. Well, my respect for the originality of FOSS is diminished by the fact that some people value having a image of Pac-Man as An Original Work. The fact that anybody finds this desirable is the most dissapointing thing. I'm seeing an example of people getting away whatever they can possibly get away with in gray areas. That's exactly why I grew to revile Microsoft. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart. File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
