RE: Demon license?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bart Silverstrim Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:45 AM To: Josh Ockert Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Ted Mittelstaedt Subject: Re: Demon license? I would think the Project people would...since they're the ones doing the project. What they say, goes. If you don't like it, fork the project with your own logo/logoscot/motto/t-shirt. What you say at the point, goes. Ah, Bart, but you see this is part of the problem. There is not consensus among the core Project members that doing this is a good idea. IMHO that is why they agreed on a contest, because the pro Beastie group is hoping that the anti Beastie group would get bogged down in the contest and lose interest, and the anti Beastie group saw the contest as a way of defeating at least one argument - that the new logo would look terrible from an artistic point of view. FreeBSD doesn't need strings attached via corporate entanglements, in my opinion. FreeBSD already has entangling corporate strings - Apple is one of the entanglers for example. But, interestingly enough, none of those people are complaining about this issue. Beastie reminds users of FreeBSD of FreeBSD like a pretty blue screen reminds them of Windows. If that doesen't appear as someone's tagline I'll be amazed!!! Let's make the logo a puddle of yellow water with a trout jumping out of it...symbolic of all the pissing matches this argument as spawned. :-) when it comes to free-source operating systems, it is a geek's party and the market promoters are the crashers. Hear hear! Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Demon license?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Josh Ockert Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:36 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Demon license? No. I have no objection to your position. I have an objection to your complete lack of disrespect. You are a troll. You go on and on, misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just generally adding nothing to the discussion. I have added plenty to the discussion and others have said so. They may have pointed out that my delivery methods are caustic, and that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar, but they don't dispute that I have made an addition. You obviously object to the caustic delivery and so are going to choose to be blinded to the content within the delivery. So be it. Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word. Except that in that case people were pointing out facts. As you said in your email, there has been no official vote. So you have no facts. You are in effect contradicting yourself when you say that those in favor of the new logo ARE in the extreme minority, but then say there was never any tally of opinions. The PRO Beastie faction is NOT attempting to change the status quo. The ANTI Beastie faction IS. I am sorry this is possibly unfamiliar to you, but the burden of proof to justify a change is on the group attempting to make a change. That means you, since you are apparently choosing to stand with the group wanting to make the change. I don't have to do a vote proving that you are a minority because by definition, since you are wanting to change the status quo, you ARE a minority. YOU are the one whos burden it is on to convince the majority that the status quo needs changing. So, let's hear your arguments. This is how reasonable people work. If your anti-Beastie arguments have merit, they will quickly be accepted by the majority - WITHOUT the need of a contest I might add - and the change will occur without significant objection. That hasn't happened here in this forum. I do however think it would be beneficial to have an image that is more abstract and more suitable to corporate customers. Corporate backing helps penetration into the market and it sometimes can result in funding. Refer please to Linux and IBM. OK, this is one of the first REAL arguments you have presented that isn't based on an avoidence technique. So, let's look at it. You say that the current image of Beastie isn't suitable to corporate customers. Do you have some sort of survey or proof that corporate customers automatically ignore products that have images of red devil-looking characters on them? (And no I don't mean ignoring products that have images of Satan on them, Greg) I won't dispute the fact that somewhere there is a corporate customer that isn't going to use FreeBSD because they think there's an image of Satan on the cover But I think it's absurd to claim that many corporate customers avoid FreeBSD because they think there's a Devil on the cover There's an enormous body of evidence that shows that large numbers of corporate customers currently use FreeBSD. They obviously don't have a problem with an image of Satan on the cover And you cannot please everyone. I would argue that somewhere there's a corporation that ignored use of Linux because they thought the image of a Penguin on the cover was too silly looking, and so obviously if the authors of Linux couldn't come up with a professional looking image on the cover, they didn't come up with a professional operating system. One of the risks you take if you replace Beastie with a different image, is that the new image is going to be misinterpreted by a different group of people. OK, so you put a cross on the cover - now all the religious right that ignored it because there was a Devil on the cover, they love you - then you lose all the Atheists that hate crosses. A crude example but you get the meaning I think. Nobody has yet come up with a commercial image that is NOT objectionable to some group out there. Look at ATT - they spent millions of bucks coming up with their logo and ended up with this globe made up of lines, that I am sure their logo consultants figured was as non-objectionable as possible to everyone. Then, they start using it everywhere and some wag noted a resemblance to Star Wars, and labeled it the ATT Death Star logo, and all that money and effort just went into the crapper. I'm sure that 6 months after the label Death Star logo made it's rounds, that the chief marketing person at ATT probably said That's the LAST GODDANM TIME we try to come up with a fucking politically correct logo Your also inferring that if we change the logo away from
RE: Demon license?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fabian Keil Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:26 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Demon license? Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Lehey said: I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. Re-read this please. DEVIL image? What is that? Devil in this context is a religious term. So what Greg is really saying here is that we would object if someone drew a religious image and associated it with FreeBSD You are quoting out of context. Greg wasn't referring to Beastie as devil, the person before him was. That would be me, and no I was not as I've explained twice now. Greg was intentional misunderstanding that Beastie was meant with devil. At least that's how I understood it. Greg doesen't generally post to that level of complexity. What he is objecting to is pretty straightforward - Beastie isn't a devil. Well the word devil is a religious term, so what Greg means is that Beastie isn't a religious icon and anyone's use of the word 'devil' in conjunction with Beastie carries the incorrect connotation that Beastie is a religious icon If your disagreeing with that, then are you supporting the idea that Beastie looks like a devil AKA icon objectionable on religious grounds? Because that is the converse of what Greg is saying. Greg took my meaning as Beastie=devil, not devil-looking-image could be drawn and associated with FreeBSD by anyone I realize that the idea I was attempting to convey was more complex and deeper than a 2 second sound bite. Please carefully reread the thread and I think you will understand it better. When I used the word devil in the sentence I was meaning a graphical drawing of a red being with horns and a tail, and that should have been apparent. I was not meaning the Catholic religious interpretation of the word devil meaning Satan. It is a sad commentary on the power of the religious conservative movement that you can't even use the word devil to mean anything other than Satan in a sentence anymore. Greg objects to the term devil in association with Beastie because he knows that too many stupid people cannot make this distinction anymore, and it's safer to simply not use the word devil anywhere near FreeBSD or Beastie so as to avoid these stupid people from claiming FreeBSD is a satanic operating system. I disagree with this because I will always choose to fight against ignorance rather than just accept it and make up some politically correct mealymouthed excuse. Sure, some stupid people cannot be educated into understanding that the Beastie image isn't an image of a devil, because they believe that the only possible interpretation of the word devil is Satan. I would rather work to educate them, like I'm working to educate you, that not all uses of devil are religious. If you or they cannot accept this, then go to Hell. ;-) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license?
On Tuesday, 19 July 2005 at 3:54:06 -0600, Ray Jenson wrote: It was not my intention to start a flame war, folks. I'm sorry. I didn't realize what a hot topic this little daemon is, and I really didn't mean to step on anyone's feel-bads or press anyone's hot-buttons. I've taken the tongue-in-cheek comments as just that: tongue-in-cheek. I'm not a member of this community, but it still seems I've done more to further the division than heal it. No, don't let it worry you. My comment was very much tongue-in-cheek. The rest of the discussion is part of the underlying banter that goes on on the FreeBSD lists. Don't let it worry you. On Tuesday, 19 July 2005 at 17:26:03 +0200, Fabian Keil wrote: Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Greg Lehey said: I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. [presumed quotation added above] Re-read this please. DEVIL image? What is that? Devil in this context is a religious term. So what Greg is really saying here is that we would object if someone drew a religious image and associated it with FreeBSD You are quoting out of context. Yes. I think it's right the way I have modified it (additional level of quotes for the first sentence). From the attributions, it looks as if the other person was Ted. Greg -- The virus contained in this message was detected, clubbed to death and distributed throughout the Internet as vaccine by LEMIS anti-virus. For further details see http://www.lemis.com/grog/lemis-virus.html Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. pgpSlpazxiUyw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Spam:****, RE: Demon license?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 6:15 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bart Silverstrim Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:45 AM To: Josh Ockert Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Ted Mittelstaedt Subject: Re: Demon license? FreeBSD doesn't need strings attached via corporate entanglements, in my opinion. FreeBSD already has entangling corporate strings - Apple is one of the entanglers for example. But, interestingly enough, none of those people are complaining about this issue. As I understand it Apple is using some of the code from FreeBSD, but FreeBSD isn't necessarily *getting* anything as an obligation from them. Ideally, if businesses give to them, that's a bonus. Businesses have always been able to take from FreeBSD as per it's license without giving anything. But when you start doing tit-for-tat scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours relationships with businesses, there's going to be problems. when it comes to free-source operating systems, it is a geek's party and the market promoters are the crashers. Hear hear! Why is the concept so hard for people to understand that open source projects aren't necessarily out to displace Windows or take over the world...that they were spawned by a desire to scratch an itch or make something that's good and fills a need. There are those who create things with some motivation to purely outdo Windows, no doubt...but for the most part it's just made to be made, without obligations? If the product works for you, you're allowed to use it. Use FreeBSD. Use GPL tools, use the Linux kernel to build a better distro, whatever. But why must people be driven to take these projects to start dancing with corporate sponsors and cash?? If you want to do that, do it the way Linux has...start a corporation using that product as the basis, and approach the businesses you're interested in courting, and leave the core project alone. Businesses aren't interested in the core Linux kernel necessarily...they work with a corporation that uses it. The corporation gives a point of contact, a point of support, a face to work with. If it goes out of business it's a case of touch noogies...the actual project itself isn't bothered one way or the other and is still available on the Internet for free with people spending their free time working on it as a hobby. *sigh* Not that it really matters in the end...que sera, sera, right? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license?
Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fabian Keil Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:26 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Demon license? Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Lehey said: I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. Re-read this please. DEVIL image? What is that? Devil in this context is a religious term. So what Greg is really saying here is that we would object if someone drew a religious image and associated it with FreeBSD You are quoting out of context. Greg wasn't referring to Beastie as devil, the person before him was. That would be me, and no I was not as I've explained twice now. Greg was intentional misunderstanding that Beastie was meant with devil. At least that's how I understood it. Greg doesen't generally post to that level of complexity. What he is objecting to is pretty straightforward - Beastie isn't a devil. Well the word devil is a religious term, so what Greg means is that Beastie isn't a religious icon and anyone's use of the word 'devil' in conjunction with Beastie carries the incorrect connotation that Beastie is a religious icon If your disagreeing with that, then are you supporting the idea that Beastie looks like a devil AKA icon objectionable on religious grounds? I think it's a reasonable idea, that a person not knowing BSD might come to the conclusion, that Beastie is a small nice looking devil. I guess I did it myself, but I don't remember. Beastie looks cute, that's good enough for me. I couldn't care less, if he's just looking like a devil or if he's supposed to be one. Because that is the converse of what Greg is saying. Greg took my meaning as Beastie=devil, not devil-looking-image could be drawn and associated with FreeBSD by anyone I realize that the idea I was attempting to convey was more complex and deeper than a 2 second sound bite. Please carefully reread the thread and I think you will understand it better. When I used the word devil in the sentence I was meaning a graphical drawing of a red being with horns and a tail, and that should have been apparent. I was not meaning the Catholic religious interpretation of the word devil meaning Satan. I got that. It is a sad commentary on the power of the religious conservative movement that you can't even use the word devil to mean anything other than Satan in a sentence anymore. Greg objects to the term devil in association with Beastie because he knows that too many stupid people cannot make this distinction anymore, and it's safer to simply not use the word devil anywhere near FreeBSD or Beastie so as to avoid these stupid people from claiming FreeBSD is a satanic operating system. And this as well. I disagree with this because I will always choose to fight against ignorance rather than just accept it and make up some politically correct mealymouthed excuse. Sure, some stupid people cannot be educated into understanding that the Beastie image isn't an image of a devil, because they believe that the only possible interpretation of the word devil is Satan. I would rather work to educate them, like I'm working to educate you, that not all uses of devil are religious. If you or they cannot accept this, then go to Hell. ;-) I have no problem accepting it, however I think I can differentiate between devil (the evil fallen angel) and devil (the outfit), even if I didn't make this clear in the other mail. What's more important, I wouldn't care I the core team decided to use the first meaning. I'm not a big fan of political correctness myself. Fabian -- http://www.fabiankeil.de/ pgph58Drk8hdL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Demon license? (copyright myths)
Josh Ockert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 1:53 : [...] As to the subject of copyright infringement, allowing other Beastie-like images to be associated with FreeBSD is not copyright infringement. Gentoo's penguin is not copyright infringement. Stylized logos that are merely similar do not infringe on eachother. That's like suggesting that a professional photographer at a wedding owns all amateur wedding photos taken by friends and family attending the event. It is not a subject that is copyrighted, or nobody would be able to paint flowers anymore. It is the image itself. Any work that is arrived at independently cannot possibly infringe on another's copyright. So a redrawing of a daemon that is not a copy of Kirk's is completely legal. (IANAL.. yet. Give me a couple more years and the MBE though and that'll change). IANAL either, but in general, a copyright holder has the right to control derivative works as well. You can't publish pictures of Mickey Mouse without permission of Disney, even if you drew the pictures yourself, and you (probably) can't publish images of Beastie without Kirk McKusick's permission. The fact that he is lenient in enforcing his rights does not mean that he doesn't have them. If someone manages to come up with a daemon image that is obviously NOT Beastie, then they won't have to worry about McKusick's copyright, but since he is so lenient in granting usage, why bother? http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html - Bob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam:****, RE: Demon license?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote: As I understand it Apple is using some of the code from FreeBSD, but FreeBSD isn't necessarily *getting* anything as an obligation from them. Ideally, if businesses give to them, that's a bonus. Businesses have always been able to take from FreeBSD as per it's license without giving anything. But when you start doing tit-for-tat scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours relationships with businesses, there's going to be problems. Just as an aside: Apple does push code back as far as I know. There was talk last year for example about MSDOS FS support being put back in from Apple Darwin. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license? (copyright myths)
On Jul 20, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Bob Johnson wrote: IANAL either, but in general, a copyright holder has the right to control derivative works as well. You can't publish pictures of Mickey Mouse without permission of Disney, even if you drew the pictures yourself, and you (probably) can't publish images of Beastie without Kirk McKusick's permission. The fact that he is lenient in enforcing his rights does not mean that he doesn't have them. If someone manages to come up with a daemon image that is obviously NOT Beastie, then they won't have to worry about McKusick's copyright, but since he is so lenient in granting usage, why bother? http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html - Bob This would be true if he had invented or come up with Beastie first. Is that how it happened? I was under the impression that he just came up with the most loved form but that previously somewhat similar images had been used for unix/bsd etc. He still has the right to derivatives of his beastie but I would suspect that not-so-similar versions would be OK. But again, IANAL and am not familiar with whole history --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam:****, RE: Demon license?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Jul 20, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote: As I understand it Apple is using some of the code from FreeBSD, but FreeBSD isn't necessarily *getting* anything as an obligation from them. Ideally, if businesses give to them, that's a bonus. Businesses have always been able to take from FreeBSD as per it's license without giving anything. But when you start doing tit-for-tat scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours relationships with businesses, there's going to be problems. Just as an aside: Apple does push code back as far as I know. There was talk last year for example about MSDOS FS support being put back in from Apple Darwin. Yes, I believe they do. What I'm saying (and what I think a great number of people don't think about) is that they're doing this but aren't *obligated* to do so. For FreeBSD, as I understand it, you can take FreeBSD, slap new images to it and alter some of the code and sell it as your own (except for copyright notices? That may have changed). There you go...you have a new product, the *BSD people don't care. You don't have to do anything for the FreeBSD team in return. If you do, they'd probably appreciate it. If you don't, well, life goes on. I'm against the slide into an obligatory relationship...FreeBSD starts marketing and courting a couple corporate friends and then there may be some obligation back and forth...forcing certain device support, or maybe some encouragement to ignore other vendors, introduce more politics. As the whole logoscot affair shows I think there's enough politics in the group and userbase as it stands. :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license? (copyright myths)
On 7/20/05, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 20, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Bob Johnson wrote: IANAL either, but in general, a copyright holder has the right to control derivative works as well. You can't publish pictures of Mickey Mouse without permission of Disney, even if you drew the pictures yourself, and you (probably) can't publish images of Beastie without Kirk McKusick's permission. The fact that he is lenient in enforcing his rights does not mean that he doesn't have them. If someone manages to come up with a daemon image that is obviously NOT Beastie, then they won't have to worry about McKusick's copyright, but since he is so lenient in granting usage, why bother? http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html - Bob This would be true if he had invented or come up with Beastie first. Is that how it happened? I was under the impression that he just came up with the most loved form but that previously somewhat similar images had been used for unix/bsd etc. He still has the right to derivatives of his beastie but I would suspect that not-so-similar versions would be OK. But again, IANAL and am not familiar with whole history --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] No I disagree. I'm fairly certain that an independently drawn personified mouse would not be copyright infringement. Calling it Mickey Mouse may very well be trademark infringement, however. -- Josh Ockert WMU Student: French Linguistics, Computer Science -- The irony in biblical creationists' rhetoric of implicitly claiming that God's universe is so inconsistent that carbon decays at erratic rates is too delicious to ignore. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license? (copyright myths)
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Josh Ockert wrote: No I disagree. I'm fairly certain that an independently drawn personified mouse would not be copyright infringement. Calling it Mickey Mouse may very well be trademark infringement, however. As long as the independently drawn personified mouse didn't look like Mickey at all you would be ok. But an independently drawn personified mouse that bore resemblance to His Mouseness would probably land you in hot water. Again, IANAL-AIDPOOTV Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license? (copyright myths)
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Josh Ockert wrote: No I disagree. I'm fairly certain that an independently drawn personified mouse would not be copyright infringement. Calling it Mickey Mouse may very well be trademark infringement, however. As long as the independently drawn personified mouse didn't look like Mickey at all you would be ok. But an independently drawn personified mouse that bore resemblance to His Mouseness would probably land you in hot water. Again, IANAL-AIDPOOTV. Unless of course you made it clear that the resemblance was intentional and your use of the copyrighted image was as part of legitimate social commentary (e.g. satire, or critique). You'd get in trouble if you tried to pass it off as an independent work. Thus the infamous Beastie F'ing Tux image is probably not an infringement of either the Beastie or the Tux image copyrights, because it's a parody. Only a federal judge could tell you for sure. Copyright is both clear cut and a murky gray area, at the same time. The only sure protection for an infringer is to have a written approval from the copyright holder for use as a get out of jail free card. IANAL, but IAAL (I am a librarian ;) and have spent more than a few hours on the subject. Anyway, this thread is getting way OT for -questions. The OP's question was answered I think. The rest of us should go to -chat, or in my case, -lunch. -- Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator South Central Library System (SCLS) Library Interchange Network (LINK) gregb at scls.lib.wi.us, (608) 266-6348 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license? (copyright myths)
Unless of course you made it clear that the resemblance was intentional and your use of the copyrighted image was as part of legitimate social commentary (e.g. satire, or critique). You'd get in trouble if you tried to pass it off as an independent work. Thus the infamous Beastie F'ing Tux image is probably not an infringement of either the Beastie or the Tux image copyrights, because it's a parody. Only a federal judge could tell you for sure. I am also not a lawyer, but I can tell you that social commentary isn't enough justification for parody. For fair use the parody has to reflect back to the copyrighted work being referenced. Ie, you can make a fake Simpsons drawing for example, as long as the joke is on them. If you want to parody George Bush by using The Simpsons, that is not fair use and is a copyright infringement. Also, enter even grayer area is the idea that the parody must only utilize enough of the referenced work to make the parody identifiable - beyond that you are possibly infringing as well. It's 2AM in Paris so I can't come up with a good example for that one. :) d. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Demon license?
Though I don't mind the banter, you guys may want to trim Ray Jenson from future messages on this thread. I don't think a potential commercial promoter of FreeBSD needs to wade through this sort of debate. All he wanted was permission to use the likeness of the Daemone for promotional purposes. ;-) -- Brian Tao (BT300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Though this be madness, yet there is method in't -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:15:29 -0700 From: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Ray Jenson [EMAIL PROTECTED], freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Demon license? -Original Message- From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 3:28 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Ray Jenson; freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Demon license? On Monday, 18 July 2005 at 2:23:45 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On Monday, July 18, 2005 1:53 AM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Monday, 18 July 2005 at 1:12:12 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) On Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:14 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: The daemon is copyright of Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]. You should ask him for permission. In general he gives it if the usage is BSD-related, as it appears to be in this case. Strictly speaking, the IMAGES of the daemon that are on the mckusick.com website are what is copyrighted. Nothing is stopping someone from drawing a 'devil' image and associating it with FreeBSD. I no longer speak for the FreeBSD project, but we have never wanted to be associated with devils. I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. Oh, you must think yourself very clever for that bit of deliberate misinterpretation. I hope you don't let it go to your head. This isn't misinterpretation. They're your words. You've been around the project for a long time, but you still don't understand how important it is to us to refer to the daemon correctly. For the second time, I was not referring to The FreeBSD Daemon as per Kirk's image, in that sentence. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Demon license?
It was not my intention to start a flame war, folks. I'm sorry. I didn't realize what a hot topic this little daemon is, and I really didn't mean to step on anyone's feel-bads or press anyone's hot-buttons. I've taken the tongue-in-cheek comments as just that: tongue-in-cheek. I'm not a member of this community, but it still seems I've done more to further the division than heal it. I've explained which side I'm on. I'm firmly pro-Beastie. But this was not the issue I originally wanted to discuss. I wanted to know whom I should contact regarding the use of Mr. Beast, and that question has largely been answered. And now the subject is breaking down into a flame war about whether or not the iconographic daemon should be changed or not. The facts of the matter are, I never intended for this to happen, and I offer my solemn apologies for starting it. Yes, it's all my fault, even if I didn't realize what a can of worms I was opening. Please, let's try to be civil! Finger-pointing and ridicule are not proper tools for rational discussion. They are also, in my experience, counter-productive (I lost my first wife to this, as well as an enormous number of business opportunities). SO, to try to undo some of the damage that I've done and put this on a more constructive path, I'd like to respond to both Grog and Ted. Says Groggy: Personally, I think it's a good idea to create for ourselves something that can contribute to a public face less open to misinterpretation while still safeguarding part of the community culture. I haven't spoken up on it so far because I saw no need to. I submit that it's entirely possible that there are many like me. Being more vocal does not make you the majority. Being more vocal does not, in fact, make you the majority, but it does in practice. Evidence of this include extremist factions like al-Qaida, the neo-Nazis, and the Sierra Club. These groups are the most vocal representations of their respective political agendas, but far from represent the whole. The terrorist organization of al-Qaida, for example, is one of the most vocal groups in the Middle East, but they do not actually corner the market on the religion of Islam, or even anti-American sentiment in the region. They are a vast minority. The neo-Nazis are another example. They claim to represent the white race. However, not all white people are racists, nor all Americans, Swedes, Germans, or any other nationality that they claim to represent. I myself am considered white but I am far from being anything even remotely resembling a racist. And then there's the Sierra Club, who claims to represent environmentalism in general. I can see their hearts are in the right place, but they really don't have a leg to stand on, with regard to a lot of the claims they generated over the years. They did, in fact, prevent proscribed burning in Colorado, which has effectively killed off a great deal of the forests because of the need for proscribed burns which help distribute seeds of certain foliage. And now for Ted: The FreeBSD Project isn't just composed of the core members and the software. It encompasses that as well as the entire userbase. If you want the userbase to come round to your point of view on this logo thing, then you need to handle the userbase with respect. And so do you, including those whom you disagree with. The entire purpose of keeping this discussion going is to arrive at a general consensus, benefit everyone (including Grog), and make a kind of open community forum for being able to discuss the possibilities. I found your post needling and disrespectful to Groggy, and while I disagree with Grog's points, I disagree with your methods. Please try to be more respectful or leave me out of the includes. This being said, you do bring up some very valid points: So far the userbase has NOT been asked to vote on this topic. This, to me, points to either a fear of outright rejection or a splintering of the group into factions. NetBSD, for example, seems to be anti-Beastie, and I couldn't find one solitary logo anywhere on their site that even remotely referred to the daemon image. My thought is that this is fine. FreeBSD can retain the beast, and those dissatisfied with the beast image are free to develop another BSD version, right? So, if you really want to splinter the group, by all means push for a change that the majority doesn't really want. Okay, now for the general stuff: It's silly and extreme to divide so thoroughly over something that doesn't really impact the quality of the OS. The logo for FreeBSD is the daemon, and this is a de facto standard (defaulted to because of its continued use over the years). To change the logo is to change the entire identity of the product, in this case. The daemon has served today (now that I know a bit more about it) to remind me that the way that the system operates is with different server daemons. These programs are so incredibly useful at keeping the
Re: Demon license?
This is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to point out that I'm not the one raising the issue. There have been numerous attempts on -questions to paint the advocates of a new logo as anti-Beastie. Specifically, Ted, you claim that The agitators in the FreeBSD project that want to jettison it are falling all over themselves to carefully explain how that ... really isn't so strongly identified with FreeBSD. There are no plans to jettison Beastie, and it has never been claimed that he's not associated with FreeBSD. Your making this statement is irresponsible behavior and I for one am going to block the address of anyone who continues on in this manner. The logo contest website very specifically says that Beastie will still be the mascot. From this I conclude one of: a) You have not read the website and have no idea what you're talking about. b) Are intentionally trying to start arguments (we call this trolling). c) Don't know that a mascot is a personified figure associated with something. Furthermore, you and some of those sharing your viewpoints have tried to paint those wishing for a different logo as in the extreme minority. Personally, I think it's a good idea to create for ourselves something that can contribute to a public face less open to misinterpretation while still safeguarding part of the community culture. I haven't spoken up on it so far because I saw no need to. I submit that it's entirely possible that there are many like me. Being more vocal does not make you the majority. Lastly, I would think that those in The Project are very able to make decisions like this. It is a meritocracy. Having a contest open to the public gathers opinions from the community. I wouldn't call that fascist, yet you seem to try to imply that it is. In short, take a chill pill. As to the subject of copyright infringement, allowing other Beastie-like images to be associated with FreeBSD is not copyright infringement. Gentoo's penguin is not copyright infringement. Stylized logos that are merely similar do not infringe on eachother. That's like suggesting that a professional photographer at a wedding owns all amateur wedding photos taken by friends and family attending the event. It is not a subject that is copyrighted, or nobody would be able to paint flowers anymore. It is the image itself. Any work that is arrived at independently cannot possibly infringe on another's copyright. So a redrawing of a daemon that is not a copy of Kirk's is completely legal. (IANAL.. yet. Give me a couple more years and the MBE though and that'll change). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license?
On Monday, 18 July 2005 at 2:23:45 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On Monday, July 18, 2005 1:53 AM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Monday, 18 July 2005 at 1:12:12 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) On Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:14 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: The daemon is copyright of Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]. You should ask him for permission. In general he gives it if the usage is BSD-related, as it appears to be in this case. Strictly speaking, the IMAGES of the daemon that are on the mckusick.com website are what is copyrighted. Nothing is stopping someone from drawing a 'devil' image and associating it with FreeBSD. I no longer speak for the FreeBSD project, but we have never wanted to be associated with devils. I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. Oh, you must think yourself very clever for that bit of deliberate misinterpretation. I hope you don't let it go to your head. This isn't misinterpretation. They're your words. You've been around the project for a long time, but you still don't understand how important it is to us to refer to the daemon correctly. On a more serious note, the userbase is objecting to certain members of The Project wanting to jettison the daemon image, and replace it with an image of a stuffed Teddy Bear (or something equally politically correct) so in the absense of the Project having much respect for what the userbase wants in the area of FreeBSD images, you can hardly expect the userbase to have much respect for what the Project wants in the area of FreeBSD images, now can you? I must be out of touch. I haven't seen any of this. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html The virus contained in this message was detected, clubbed to death and distributed throughout the Internet as vaccine by LEMIS anti-virus. For further details see http://www.lemis.com/grog/lemis-virus.html Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. pgpqjTnfMRi08.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Demon license?
-Original Message- From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 3:28 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Ray Jenson; freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Demon license? On Monday, 18 July 2005 at 2:23:45 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On Monday, July 18, 2005 1:53 AM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Monday, 18 July 2005 at 1:12:12 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) On Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:14 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: The daemon is copyright of Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]. You should ask him for permission. In general he gives it if the usage is BSD-related, as it appears to be in this case. Strictly speaking, the IMAGES of the daemon that are on the mckusick.com website are what is copyrighted. Nothing is stopping someone from drawing a 'devil' image and associating it with FreeBSD. I no longer speak for the FreeBSD project, but we have never wanted to be associated with devils. I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. Oh, you must think yourself very clever for that bit of deliberate misinterpretation. I hope you don't let it go to your head. This isn't misinterpretation. They're your words. You've been around the project for a long time, but you still don't understand how important it is to us to refer to the daemon correctly. For the second time, I was not referring to The FreeBSD Daemon as per Kirk's image, in that sentence. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Demon license?
-Original Message- From: Josh Ockert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:54 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Greg 'groggy' Lehey; Ray Jenson; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Demon license? This is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to point out that I'm not the one raising the issue. There have been numerous attempts on -questions to paint the advocates of a new logo as anti-Beastie. Specifically, Ted, you claim that The agitators in the FreeBSD project that want to jettison it are falling all over themselves to carefully explain how that ... really isn't so strongly identified with FreeBSD. There are no plans to jettison Beastie, and it has never been claimed that he's not associated with FreeBSD. Your making this statement is irresponsible behavior and I for one am going to block the address of anyone who continues on in this manner. Go ahead. Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to consider any position different than your own. I am at least willing to continue to discuss it. Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word. If you block the address of anyone who continues on in this manner you simply prove my point for me - that the proponents of this anti-Beastie crusade only care what they want, not what anyone else wants. The logo contest website very specifically says that Beastie will still be the mascot. From this I conclude one of: a) You have not read the website and have no idea what you're talking about. b) Are intentionally trying to start arguments (we call this trolling). c) Don't know that a mascot is a personified figure associated with something. This mascot argument has been brought up before and disproved before. Beastie has been treated as the Project's logo since FreeBSD 1.1 He has been referred to as a mascot - irregularly - but his image has been used as the defacto logo image for FreeBSD. Perhaps nobody that YOU might consider authoratative has ever made a blanket statement that Beastie's image is the official FreeBSD Project's Logo however that is nothing more than a semantic argument. His image has been USED as the logo on just about every CDROM pressing that Walnut Creek ever sold, and in numerous other websites and on the FreeBSD Project's website. And I am not talking about the full color images on the front of the CD jewel cases, I'm talking about the minature Beastie logo image on the back. Face the fact, Beastie is the current logo. Now, you may argue that it is time for the FreeBSD Project to change it's logo - although I have yet to see a logical reason for this - and I think I and the userbase would have some respect for this argument if you could use a logical proof. But your argument that he never was the logo to begin with is nothing more than an attempt to side-step the discussion of why do we need to change the logo now. In short, you know your arguments for making a logo change won't hold water so you would rather not have to make them - so your going to try to argue that you don't have to make them since he was never the logo to begin with This is a cowards argument and not one that will generate any respect among the userbase. And trying to argue that there's room for both a logo and a mascot is purely an argument of appeasement. There can only be one recognizable imagery for The FreeBSD Project, just as for ANY product. And the appeasement argument also totally ignores that it is the userbase's choice of what imagery they recognize as being associated with FreeBSD that is going to win. If the userbase turns it's back on the new logo that this ill-advised contest comes up with, then your going to be stuck with Beastie continuing to be used and recognized as the 'real' logo. The situation would be analogous to if one day Microsoft decided they wanted to stop using the Windows logo and the word Windows to refer to their product line. It wouldn't work because the Windows userbase would simply ignore any alternative attempt at a logo than the flying Window. Furthermore, you and some of those sharing your viewpoints have tried to paint those wishing for a different logo as in the extreme minority. They are. Personally, I think it's a good idea to create for ourselves something that can contribute to a public face less open to misinterpretation while still safeguarding part of the community culture. I haven't spoken up on it so far because I saw no need to. I submit that it's entirely possible that there are many like me. Being more vocal does not make you the majority. Yes, as a matter of fact, it does. The FreeBSD Project isn't just composed of the core members and the software. It encompasses that as well as the entire userbase. If you want the userbase
Re: Demon license?
Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Lehey said: I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. Re-read this please. DEVIL image? What is that? Devil in this context is a religious term. So what Greg is really saying here is that we would object if someone drew a religious image and associated it with FreeBSD You are quoting out of context. Greg wasn't referring to Beastie as devil, the person before him was. Greg was intentional misunderstanding that Beastie was meant with devil. At least that's how I understood it. Fabian -- http://www.fabiankeil.de/ pgppjAEJySUVW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Demon license?
Go ahead. Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to consider any position different than your own. I am at least willing to continue to discuss it. No. I have no objection to your position. I have an objection to your complete lack of disrespect. You are a troll. You go on and on, misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just generally adding nothing to the discussion. Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word. Except that in that case people were pointing out facts. As you said in your email, there has been no official vote. So you have no facts. You are in effect contradicting yourself when you say that those in favor of the new logo ARE in the extreme minority, but then say there was never any tally of opinions. If you block the address of anyone who continues on in this manner you simply prove my point for me - that the proponents of this anti-Beastie crusade only care what they want, not what anyone else wants. I never said I was anti-Beastie. I'm not. I have many pieces of pro-Beastie propaganda (look the word up before you start flaming). I do however think it would be beneficial to have an image that is more abstract and more suitable to corporate customers. Corporate backing helps penetration into the market and it sometimes can result in funding. Refer please to Linux and IBM. This mascot argument has been brought up before and disproved before. Beastie has been treated as the Project's logo since FreeBSD 1.1 He has been referred to as a mascot - irregularly - but his image has been used as the defacto logo image for FreeBSD. There is nothing to disprove. It's not a formal argument. It's a statement. He will be the project's mascot. Period. There is nothing more to discuss. I have never said he *wasn't* the logo. If you think I said that, please reread my original post. Perhaps nobody that YOU might consider authoratative has ever made a blanket statement that Beastie's image is the official FreeBSD Project's Logo however that is nothing more than a semantic argument. His image has been USED as the logo on just about every CDROM pressing that Walnut Creek ever sold, and in numerous other websites and on the FreeBSD Project's website. And I am not talking about the full color images on the front of the CD jewel cases, I'm talking about the minature Beastie logo image on the back. Face the fact, Beastie is the current logo. I've never disagreed with you on this. Before. Now I will. There are generally two types of logos. There is the Official Logo which is often what you see on media packaging. This is usually a combination of words and a graphic. Those responsible for the new logo contest contend that the logo in this sense of the word is that found at http://www.freebsd.org/gifs/freebsd_1.gif. I find that I have no trouble agreeing with them. A logo is what's supposed to give you a first impression of a product. A logo is about marketing. Advertising. Viewed in this light, Beastie cannot be the logo because he does not have any direct link to the FreeBSD project, he is only associated with it. One does not see Beastie for the first time and automatically conclude FreeBSD! It is this goal that one hopes will be accomplished with the new logo. Now, you may argue that it is time for the FreeBSD Project to change it's logo - although I have yet to see a logical reason for this - and I think I and the userbase would have some respect for this argument if you could use a logical proof. But your argument that he never was the logo to begin with is nothing more than an attempt to side-step the discussion of why do we need to change the logo now. Logical proofs are intended to demonstrate truths. An action in the future is not a truth. No intelligent person would claim that FreeBSD should change its logo is a theorem to be proven by a system of postulates and axioms. By virtue of the word should it is entirely a statement of judgment. The reasoning behind this judgment is that there are many cases in which FreeBSD might have been used that it was not because some PHB didn't like Beastie. To be honest, considering corporate culture and the threat of being sued and/or required to take sensitivity classes, I cannot fault the PHB for not wanting Beastie around. In fact, if you search the mail archives you'll find people trying to get rid of the Beastie boot menu because it got them into trouble at work. Forgive my rambling. My point is: Corporate-friendly politically-correct logo = higher market penetration = more people using and hopefully contributing to FreeBSD = FreeBSD gets better whereas Current logo/mascot/whatevertheyouwannacallitidontreallygivea = Some change-resistant people are happy. In short, you
Re: Demon license?
On Jul 19, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Josh Ockert wrote: Go ahead. Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to consider any position different than your own. I am at least willing to continue to discuss it. No. I have no objection to your position. I have an objection to your complete lack of disrespect. I know I'D be angry at people who show an utter lack of disrepect, you punk! (ha ha..touche'!) You are a troll. You go on and on, misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just generally adding nothing to the discussion. That's kind of odd since I remember Ted giving help on the list a number of times. Personally the term Troll is becoming rather watered down, which is a shame...it used to actually mean someone who was out to do nothing but cause trouble. This is no longer how the word is used now apparently. It is a generic term used towards anyone with whom one has a disagreement with online. One thing I do not understand is why people say things like you're deliberately misinterpreting..you're confusing the issue..etcand not stop, take a breath, and actually spell out the issue(s) *as you understand them* and ask for clarifications. Get some common ground on which to communicate. If one is talking about apples and the other bitching about oranges, at least get that straightened out. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time. Spell out the issue. Clarify for understanding. Argue and *stay on topic* until resolved point by point. Otherwise...quit wasting your time. Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word. Except that in that case people were pointing out facts. As you said in your email, there has been no official vote. So you have no facts. Technically, votes != facts. You are in effect contradicting yourself when you say that those in favor of the new logo ARE in the extreme minority, but then say there was never any tally of opinions. Overall, the argument is foolish. I really see why some people keep their OS projects to themselves for control, if for nothing else than to keep large groups of people from bitching about something that may or may not be within the scope of the project's goals to begin with. Beastie has been associated with FreeBSD for how long now? Since 1.0? Ronald McDonald...logo, or mascot? Does it really matter? They're considered one in the same by the public. There are a number of more-religious-than-not people who had advocated getting rid of the logoscot of Beastie because he invokes the image of the DEVIL. There are many ignoramuses out there who think themselves experts in using computers because they get an MSCE cert. There was someone in my own computer science classes who managed to pass with her four year degree without even knowing what in hell an operating system was in relation to an application. These people are out there making up the field of IT Professionals. Who exactly is qualified to decide whether or not Beastie should be the logoscot of the Project? The users who couldn't tell a source code file from a binary? The users who can configure a DHCP server without glancing at the console? I would think the Project people would...since they're the ones doing the project. What they say, goes. If you don't like it, fork the project with your own logo/logoscot/motto/t-shirt. What you say at the point, goes. If you block the address of anyone who continues on in this manner you simply prove my point for me - that the proponents of this anti-Beastie crusade only care what they want, not what anyone else wants. I never said I was anti-Beastie. I'm not. I have many pieces of pro-Beastie propaganda (look the word up before you start flaming). I do however think it would be beneficial to have an image that is more abstract and more suitable to corporate customers. Corporate backing helps penetration into the market and it sometimes can result in funding. Refer please to Linux and IBM. Yeah, because a fat penguin is a wonderful image to portray. On the other hand, IBM tended to partner with actual corporations with an actual logo...for themselves. Linux gets benefits from the ensuing halo effect, but there are particular businesses that get the direct benefits. I don't see Linspire doing cartwheels because of IBM. The thing is, FreeBSD as a project may think it's NICE to get hardware/cash/goodies from businesses, but doesn't set out courting to get them (note...not on FBSD Project team, these are my observations and opinions). You wouldn't necessarily WANT it. When you start hopping into bed with particular businesses, you start making concessions to them. Then things just start getting messy. If you're an impartial
Re: Demon license?
On 7/19/05, Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 19, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Josh Ockert wrote: Go ahead. Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to consider any position different than your own. I am at least willing to continue to discuss it. No. I have no objection to your position. I have an objection to your complete lack of disrespect. I know I'D be angry at people who show an utter lack of disrepect, you punk! (ha ha..touche'!) Oops. You are a troll. You go on and on, misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just generally adding nothing to the discussion. That's kind of odd since I remember Ted giving help on the list a number of times. Personally the term Troll is becoming rather watered down, which is a shame...it used to actually mean someone who was out to do nothing but cause trouble. This is no longer how the word is used now apparently. It is a generic term used towards anyone with whom one has a disagreement with online. No. I disagree with your apparent position. But I think you were respectful. I wouldn't call you a troll. Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word. Except that in that case people were pointing out facts. As you said in your email, there has been no official vote. So you have no facts. Technically, votes != facts. When talking about the opinions of the majority of users, votes are facts. Seeing as how Ted has never helped me, my impressions of him come entirely from within the context of this thread. If you'll refer to his original posting it was very inflammatory. Unless I'm mistaken, intentionally trying to get a rise out of people is trolling. I kinda thought this came out of a fishing metaphor. Ted is the one who made the assertion, that those who don't have a problem with the new logo are in the minority. That is his assertion. And the burden of proof *is* on him to prove it. My guess is that it may seem that way because the majority of people who are indifferent or even happy about the new logo steer clear of these heated threads on the subject. With that, I'm done. Have fun. Ciao. -- Josh Ockert WMU Student: French Linguistics, Computer Science -- The irony in biblical creationists' rhetoric of implicitly claiming that God's universe is so inconsistent that carbon decays at erratic rates is too delicious to ignore. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license?
On Jul 19, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Josh Ockert wrote: On 7/19/05, Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 19, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Josh Ockert wrote: Go ahead. Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to consider any position different than your own. I am at least willing to continue to discuss it. No. I have no objection to your position. I have an objection to your complete lack of disrespect. I know I'D be angry at people who show an utter lack of disrepect, you punk! (ha ha..touche'!) Oops. I was just joshin' you there. It was an honest typo that induces some giggles. :-) You are a troll. You go on and on, misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just generally adding nothing to the discussion. That's kind of odd since I remember Ted giving help on the list a number of times. Personally the term Troll is becoming rather watered down, which is a shame...it used to actually mean someone who was out to do nothing but cause trouble. This is no longer how the word is used now apparently. It is a generic term used towards anyone with whom one has a disagreement with online. No. I disagree with your apparent position. But I think you were respectful. I wouldn't call you a troll. ...that's kind of ambiguous. My apparent position is that Ted's not a troll, or that the term troll has become watered down? If the latter, I'm basing it on general observations across a number of lists and Usenet forums... If the former...well...unless we define what specifically a troll is, it couldn't really be solved. From my understanding of the definition in my time on this here In-tar-net, methinks Ted does not fit the bill. Not that I really know the guy...just based on posts I've read of his in the past. Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word. Except that in that case people were pointing out facts. As you said in your email, there has been no official vote. So you have no facts. Technically, votes != facts. When talking about the opinions of the majority of users, votes are facts. You can make a statement that can be a fact regarding the position of the voters (ie, the majority according to this poll believe Elvis was an alien, and if the majority did indeed believe this according to the poll then it is a fact about the outcome of the poll) yet it does not make the actual position a fact (if the majority of people believe the sky is made of vanilla pudding, it does not make the sky actually made of vanilla pudding; the majority of people believe in some form of higher power deity, but the fact that everyone and their neighbor believe this doesn't make it true...hence the term faith). Seeing as how Ted has never helped me, my impressions of him come entirely from within the context of this thread. Well, you might want to do a quick google on him to see what other posts have turned up from him in the past. I won't attest to his character, but I do know that his name is constantly flowing into my freebsd-questions folder. Maybe it'll give you a little more understanding of his position. Or you'll want to spit on him when you're done. I don't honestly know. If you'll refer to his original posting it was very inflammatory. Unless I'm mistaken, intentionally trying to get a rise out of people is trolling. I kinda thought this came out of a fishing metaphor. Kinda. It depends on motive. I can send a message to the list that is very inflammatory making all sorts of statements about FreeBSD users' mothers. If that's *all* I do, and people on the list equate my name with a mental Oh $DEITY not again...* or plonk list, then I'm a troll. If I'm purely doing this just to piss people off, it's a troll. If I had a bad day but at least 75% of the time my posts are on topic and/or helpful and/or generally at least non-harmful, I'd say it's not trolling. You said it yourself that you don't really know anything about Ted's previous posts. Cut some slack...this topic has been hashed so many times over that if it were food it would now be suitable for serving at a home for the elderly. Beastie and the logowars are a touchy topic. Ted is the one who made the assertion, that those who don't have a problem with the new logo are in the minority. That is his assertion. And the burden of proof *is* on him to prove it. True enough...but to tell the truth, I think most people either don't give a damn or would much rather NOT change the logo, either because A) Beastie has sentimental value, or B) the *reason* behind changing/hiding/downplaying him is asinine (religious hatred, big businesses won't suck up to BSD, clueless PHBs and users don't get it). My guess is that it may seem that way because
Re: Demon license?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Ray Jenson wrote: Here's where Brian Tao comes in: we'd like permission to use the demon on our web site when directly linked to BSD, as well as a composite graphic (sample is attached) that would show the devil alongside other logos, such as Tux, the Red Hat logo, and Microsoft's Windows logo. Sorry folks, just got back from a two-week trip to China and I'm just catching up on things now. I've relocated Ray's e-mail attachment here, in case it was stripped out of the freebsd-questions: http://www.luxography.ca/Images/tmp/os.gif Ray, I only created some of the Powered by... graphics seen at the bottom of http://www.freebsd.org/art.html , which you are not using (and thus do not need my permission). Certain likenesses of the BSD Daemon are copyrighted by Marshall Kirk McKusick, as others have pointed out... I encourage you to contact Kirk about your venture, as he may be able to provide better source material for you. -- Brian Tao (BT300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Though this be madness, yet there is method in't ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Demon license?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Greg 'groggy' Lehey Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:14 PM To: Ray Jenson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Demon license? alongside other logos, such as Tux, the Red Hat logo, and Microsoft's Windows logo. We're in the process of testing our hardware configurations before offering BSD-powered machines to our clients, which should knock a significant amount off the price. These logos are not currently displayed, but I can send you a mock-up if you need it. The daemon is copyright of Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]. You should ask him for permission. In general he gives it if the usage is BSD-related, as it appears to be in this case. Strictly speaking, the IMAGES of the daemon that are on the mckusick.com website are what is copyrighted. Nothing is stopping someone from drawing a 'devil' image and associating it with FreeBSD. Over the years there have been many representations of the BSD Daemon. Not all are copyrighted by Kirk, for example: http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/shirts/bsdunix.html http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/shirts/usenix.html Both the above are USENIX copyrights - per Kirk. However, to me the most classic FreeBSD Daemon image that has ever been done has been the 4.3BSD one: http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/gif/bsd4_3.gif That one, and similar variants, I think also are the most recognizable one as the FreeBSD one. And that one and the variants are copyrighted by Kirk. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license?
[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] Incorrect text wrapping On Monday, 18 July 2005 at 1:12:12 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) On Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:14 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: No I didn't. I wrote this on Monday, 18 Jul 2005 08:44:03. The daemon is copyright of Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]. You should ask him for permission. In general he gives it if the usage is BSD-related, as it appears to be in this case. Strictly speaking, the IMAGES of the daemon that are on the mckusick.com website are what is copyrighted. Nothing is stopping someone from drawing a 'devil' image and associating it with FreeBSD. I no longer speak for the FreeBSD project, but we have never wanted to be associated with devils. I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html The virus contained in this message was detected, clubbed to death and distributed throughout the Internet as vaccine by LEMIS anti-virus. For further details see http://www.lemis.com/grog/lemis-virus.html Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. pgpRXT3dZYddU.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Demon license?
-Original Message- From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 1:53 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Ray Jenson; freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Demon license? [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] Incorrect text wrapping On Monday, 18 July 2005 at 1:12:12 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) On Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:14 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: No I didn't. I wrote this on Monday, 18 Jul 2005 08:44:03. The daemon is copyright of Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]. You should ask him for permission. In general he gives it if the usage is BSD-related, as it appears to be in this case. Strictly speaking, the IMAGES of the daemon that are on the mckusick.com website are what is copyrighted. Nothing is stopping someone from drawing a 'devil' image and associating it with FreeBSD. I no longer speak for the FreeBSD project, but we have never wanted to be associated with devils. I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. Oh, you must think yourself very clever for that bit of deliberate misinterpretation. I hope you don't let it go to your head. On a more serious note, the userbase is objecting to certain members of The Project wanting to jettison the daemon image, and replace it with an image of a stuffed Teddy Bear (or something equally politically correct) so in the absense of the Project having much respect for what the userbase wants in the area of FreeBSD images, you can hardly expect the userbase to have much respect for what the Project wants in the area of FreeBSD images, now can you? The phrase daemon image in the context of a sentence about FreeBSD carries a very specific connotation of one of Kirks images, that image that I mentioned in my prior post. (and is in fact at the top of the FreeBSD project webpage) If I had said: Nothing is stopping someone from drawing a daemon image that would have been interpreted as advocating copyright infringement due to the connotation, because it would have been read as making a likeness that is very similar to Beastie. It would have been incorrect since that was not what I meant. However, what I said gets the idea across that the image I'm talking about would be closer to one of the daemons that are on the USENIX copyrighted images that were linked. Thus not infringing on Kirk's image, yet still getting the daemon association across. (not devil association) Actually, it is ironic that over the years that Kirk's image has been so strongly identified with FreeBSD. The agitators in the FreeBSD project that want to jettison it are falling all over themselves to carefully explain how that image really isn't a logo for FreeBSD, and really isn't so strongly identified with FreeBSD. Yet we all know different, as your post admits - since if Kirk's beastie image wasn't identified as the FreeBSD logo image by the userbase, you never would have jumped to Beastie's defense. But if in fact a succession of beastie images had been in current use, instead of Kirks one very fine image, it would have diluted the shock value of the Beastie image, and probably would have removed the main objection the anti-Beastie group has to the strong identification of a Devil to FreeBSD. (since it would be expected that people would use whatever imagery they preferred, rather than toeing the line to use the One True Beastie image that Kirk copyrighted) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demon license?
Greetings! My name is Ray Jenson, and I'm the CEO of a new start-up company in Utah, called Red Heron Corporation. Our company has recently decided that we'd like to start shipping CD's as a service to our customers. We would prominently display a link to the FreeBSD web site, as well as notifying our clients of the ability to download the software free. Here's where Brian Tao comes in: we'd like permission to use the demon on our web site when directly linked to BSD, as well as a composite graphic (sample is attached) that would show the devil alongside other logos, such as Tux, the Red Hat logo, and Microsoft's Windows logo. We're in the process of testing our hardware configurations before offering BSD-powered machines to our clients, which should knock a significant amount off the price. These logos are not currently displayed, but I can send you a mock-up if you need it. Also, I am wondering whom I contact with regard to getting authorization to actually ship the software. We wouldn't necessarily want ad space anywhere, until we're sure that we can provide timely shipments (our processes are still being developed). We are an OEM. We plan to start doing business on August 1st 2005. We will have an e-commerce storefront and will plan to offer BSD along with other products if we can find someplace to supply the optical media so that we can ship it. Thanks, Ray Jenson, CEO Red Heron Corporation ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demon license?
On Sunday, 17 July 2005 at 16:54:30 -0600, Ray Jenson wrote: Greetings! My name is Ray Jenson, and I'm the CEO of a new start-up company in Utah, called Red Heron Corporation. Our company has recently decided that we'd like to start shipping CD's as a service to our customers. We would prominently display a link to the FreeBSD web site, as well as notifying our clients of the ability to download the software free. Here's where Brian Tao comes in: we'd like permission to use the demon on our web site when directly linked to BSD, as well as a composite graphic (sample is attached) It doesn't seem to have made it. that would show the devil Devil? Devil? That's a daemon! alongside other logos, such as Tux, the Red Hat logo, and Microsoft's Windows logo. We're in the process of testing our hardware configurations before offering BSD-powered machines to our clients, which should knock a significant amount off the price. These logos are not currently displayed, but I can send you a mock-up if you need it. The daemon is copyright of Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]. You should ask him for permission. In general he gives it if the usage is BSD-related, as it appears to be in this case. Also, I am wondering whom I contact with regard to getting authorization to actually ship the software. We wouldn't necessarily want ad space anywhere, until we're sure that we can provide timely shipments (our processes are still being developed). The FreeBSD license states the conditions for distribution. It's in the file /COPYRIGHT on any installed FreeBSD system. It's relatively long, so I won't include it all here, but the salient points are: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html The virus contained in this message was detected, clubbed to death and distributed throughout the Internet as vaccine by LEMIS anti-virus. For further details see http://www.lemis.com/grog/lemis-virus.html Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. pgpLuuvGEDk8f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Demon license?
On Sunday 17 July 2005 17:54, Ray Jenson wrote: Greetings! My name is Ray Jenson, and I'm the CEO of a new start-up company in Utah, called Red Heron Corporation. Our company has recently decided that we'd like to start shipping CD's as a service to our customers. We would prominently display a link to the FreeBSD web site, as well as notifying our clients of the ability to download the software free. Here's where Brian Tao comes in: we'd like permission to use the demon on our web site when directly linked to BSD, as well as a composite graphic (sample is attached) that would show the devil alongside other logos, such as Tux, the Red Hat logo, and Microsoft's Windows logo. We're in the process of testing our hardware configurations before offering BSD-powered machines to our clients, which should knock a significant amount off the price. These logos are not currently displayed, but I can send you a mock-up if you need it. Also, I am wondering whom I contact with regard to getting authorization to actually ship the software. We wouldn't necessarily want ad space anywhere, until we're sure that we can provide timely shipments (our processes are still being developed). We are an OEM. We plan to start doing business on August 1st 2005. We will have an e-commerce storefront and will plan to offer BSD along with other products if we can find someplace to supply the optical media so that we can ship it. Thanks, Ray Jenson, CEO Red Heron Corporation It's daemon, Ray, not devil. The devil is in the Microsoft licensing. lane ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
