Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
Jason Self wrote: Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote .. I think so. If you put Firefox with branding on a Trisquel CD then you (or anyone else) can't sell that CD, as I understand it. Not being able to charge money for unmodified binaries does seem to conflict with that with what the FSF has in their Free Software Definition. I think the GNU Bucks program should be extended to include fsf.org [1]. :) [1] http://www.fsf.org/working-together/moving/windows/
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
On Friday 22 July 2011 10:00:00 Diego Saravia wrote: 2011/7/22 Leo l...@kde.org.ar: On Thursday 21 July 2011 18:34:33 Diego Saravia wrote: we need new, independient projects, a new free kernel, a new free browser, with free true sources, and a comunity involved in free software principles. Why new? We have Linux-libre source of linux libre is linux, and is not free source of icecat is firefox and we are seeing that is not free Source of Linux-libre is Linux-libre, completely free: http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux- libre/download/releases/LATEST-2.6.39.0/linux-2.6.39-libre.tar.bz2 Source of GNU IceCat, again completely free: http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnuzilla/5.0/icecat-5.0.tar.bz2 There's absolutely no need to work on a new free browser or a new kernel. -- RMS Rose GNU/Linux-libre http://rmsgnulinux.com.ar #rmsgnulinux @ irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
On Friday 22 July 2011 14:37:03 Diego Saravia wrote: source of linux libre is linux, and is not free source of icecat is firefox and we are seeing that is not free Source of Linux-libre is Linux-libre, completely free: http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux- libre/download/releases/LATEST-2.6.39.0/linux-2.6.39-libre.tar.bz2 Source of GNU IceCat, again completely free: http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnuzilla/5.0/icecat-5.0.tar.bz2 that files are not sources, sources are in linux project and mozilla proyects. Linuxlibre and ice-cat are usefull, to aloud people to use only free software without restrictions, to know what happens in each machine (blobs) (if they have the hardware) or to aloud to sell software, but they don' t provide sources. They provide a sub product of the real sources, that are not free. A restricted set of software that is free. these files are modified by hand or in automatic way (like kernel in ututo), bur are not sources call them sources is like call sources a grammar in c produced by yacc/bisson there are not legaly sources, and is not a good idea to think of them as a new project, becouse the people that really do the code are not in linux-libre nor in ice cat project. They are not new projects, nor forks, and continue to be that way, each new version is constructed from a new version of the very sources. Only one criterion: remove non free, restrict the universo of machines to the one in wich only free soft. could be run. Do we have compilable code that produces a free browser and a free kernel? If the answer is yes, then your point is moot. I call that sources, if you want to pick at semantics minutae then you're alone on that. -- RMS Rose GNU/Linux-libre http://rmsgnulinux.com.ar #rmsgnulinux @ irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
What? Is is absolutely source code. In a way, they are forks from upstream. They address the problematic areas of the upstream software that concern the free software community that upstream doesn't want to address. GNU Icecat, for example, can be used without ever thinking about Mozilla's trademark policy since it's completely rebranded, and Linux-libre addresses all of the problematic areas of the upstream Linux kernel. There's no need for a code split, since that's what you seem to be talking about. While I would love to see the upstream Linux kernel adopt the changes that are made in Linux-libre, I doubt that will happen any time soon. In the meantime, we have a kernel that is entirely freedom-respecting. What would we use without Linux-libre? The HURD is not really ready for prime time, and developing an entirely new kernel from scratch would take alot of time and energy and gain us... what, exactly? We'd gain an entirely free kernel *all over again*? We already have one. So I see nothing bad about maintaining what is essentially a fork of the Linux kernel, and incorporating changes from new releases of the Linux kernel when they occur, and plenty of good stuff reasons to do so. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
2011/7/22 Jason Self ja...@bluehome.net What? Is is absolutely source code. Source is the point of origin of something Its not the same as upstream. cd .. takes you upstream. cd / takes you to the root. its not the same as compilable code In software, is what PEOPLE create by its minds. Legally the authors of that source: firefox, linux, not linuxlibre, not icecat. So if we want to have the source code of something as free, we need to have a comunity commited to free software principles creating that software. The source came from minds, free soft from free minds. As usual, the first point is liberating minds. From AUTHORS, persons, beings. Taking software from others and taking out free parts is good for our purpouses, but we do not obtain magicaly free sources. We obtain free distributable code, binary and in human readable language, but not sources. We'd gain an entirely free kernel *all over again*? We already have one. So I see nothing bad about maintaining what is essentially a fork of the Linux kernel, and incorporating changes from new releases of the Linux kernel when they occur, and plenty of good stuff reasons to do so. Its not bad, is good, off course, but is not a free source, that's all. ok, we have a little (or big, thats a relative question) problem, free software rules say that you must distribute free sources but we have not one. we have a good aproximation, we are near the root, but not in the root. Thats all.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
you can't fix it and distribute your fix which is where the real problem lies No, the problem I'd like to discuss is the fact that if you don't modify the package first (removing the trademark), you can't distribute it in all the ways the software license allows you to.
