Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
On Wednesday 03 August 2011 21:51:03 Diego Saravia wrote: While projects like linux-libre and icecat are not the legal copyright holder of the source isn't relevant to us; the licence they are distributed under gives us the permission we need. (No one entity holds all the copyright to Linux either). yes, nobody says that you dont have the right to distribute. the point is that what you distribute are not: the sources You keep saying that word but I don't think you understand what it means. Yes, they _are_ the sources of forked projects. The source of the branch, if you will. If you want to be upstream, then start your own projects, make them better than Linux and Firefox and people will use them. If you can pull that, superb! I'll be thrilled, I'll get you a chocolate chip cookie and maybe even a cup of milk to go along. In the meantime, as long as the rest of us can get some usable free source (regardless of where the source comes from or if we are a fork or upstream) and distribute it following the 4 precepts of the free software definition according to the FSF, that's good for us (at least it is for me). Ideally I'd like Linux-libre and GNU IceCat to be the father projects of Linux and Firefox. Ideally I'd like everybody using the libre versions instead of the less-than-libre versions. Sadly, it is not an ideal world. Complaining about Mozilla or Linux in this mailing list won't make the world any more ideal. On the other hand, doing what Giuseppe or Alexandre do does benefit us. Saying we don't have source code because we are not the originator of the project is a logical fallacy. I am not speaking about have, con can get the real sources, from original project. Forking is one of the benefits of free software. And, yes, GNU IceCat and Linux-libre are forks even if you don't consider them that. If you don't like it or if you don't think that's beneficial, refer to my previous comment. I may not use Firefox or Linux, but I'm thankful for the effort put behind those projects because they allow us to have GNU IceCat and Linux-libre, which are 100% free. Not sure what you were getting at there. the true. Your truth. So, what I wonder is: besides pointing out the supposed elephant in the room, what's the purpose of all your emails? What action do you propose should be taken? Starting new projects when we already have 100% free projects seems ridiculous to me. Do you have any other proposal or should we leave this thread die? After all, the initial concern about trademarks has been addressed and I'm replying to a hijack. If all you wanted was to show us your truth, then I'll move along. -- 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 Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:51:03 -0300 Diego Saravia d...@unsa.edu.ar wrote: While projects like linux-libre and icecat are not the legal copyright holder of the source isn't relevant to us; the licence they are distributed under gives us the permission we need. (No one entity holds all the copyright to Linux either). yes, nobody says that you dont have the right to distribute. the point is that what you distribute are not: the sources Saying we don't have source code because we are not the originator of the project is a logical fallacy. I am not speaking about have, con can get the real sources, from original project. Not sure what you were getting at there. the true. Maybe, but I'm certainly not able to find it in your comments - perhaps there is simply misunderstanding involved. Personally, I'm not interested in pursuing this any further, as history suggests we won't come to an agreement :) thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
Yes, they _are_ the sources of forked projects. if every time the sources changed, you rebuild your project, you dont have a forked project. If you want to be upstream, then start your own projects, make them better than Linux and Firefox and people will use them. If you can pull that, superb! I'll be thrilled, I'll get you a chocolate chip cookie and maybe even a cup of milk to go along. yes. In the meantime, as long as the rest of us can get some usable free source its not a source, call it compilable tarball if you like, but not source (regardless of where the source comes from or if we are a fork or upstream) if it is not THE source (could only be one) you must not call it source. and distribute it following the 4 precepts of the free software definition according to the FSF, that's good for us (at least it is for me). Its ok for me also, but what these kind of proyect produce is not THE source Ideally I'd like Linux-libre and GNU IceCat to be the father projects of Linux and Firefox. I to Ideally I'd like everybody using the libre versions instead of the less-than-libre versions. In case of linux libre, there is some hardware that cannot be used, so the ideal is to have free software for all hardware linux libre is good, but not an ideal. Sadly, it is not an ideal world. I agree Complaining about Mozilla or Linux in this mailing list won't make the world any more ideal. I am not complaining about Mozilla or Linux, I am not complaining at all. On the other hand, doing what Giuseppe or Alexandre do does benefit us. Yes, is a good job. Forking is one of the benefits of free software. And, yes, GNU IceCat and Linux-libre are forks even if you don't consider them that. A fork is a split, a new point of begining. If you don't like it or if you don't think that's beneficial, refer to my previous comment. I may not use Firefox or Linux, but I'm thankful for the effort put behind those projects because they allow us to have GNU IceCat and Linux-libre, which are 100% free. I am thankfull also Your truth. off course, I can only speak about what I believe. So, what I wonder is: besides pointing out the supposed elephant in the room, Its not an elephant. what's the purpose of all your emails? What action do you propose should be taken? Starting new projects when we already have 100% free projects seems ridiculous to me. We do have a copy and cut project. We must have 100% free original projects. Knowing that is the first step to reach that point. Could be done if original projects get 100% free, or by new projects, etc.. But if we think that everything si ok, we will never be where we want to be. People is the really source, the really asset of free software community. If real developers do not feel the need for free software we are dead. Two important projects as linux and mozilla are in a non free path. We need 100% free projects developed by 100% free minds. Do you have any other proposal or should we leave this thread die? You can do whatever you like. I give you my blessings.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
Do you have any other proposal or should we leave this thread die? You can do whatever you like. I give you my blessings. What do you propose, Diego? It would be important to know and consider your opinion so something useful can be done. Debating without a proposal is useless. You have a lot of experience and vision about these issues so your proposal will probably have a great possibility to have acceptance and success. Please give us an alternative so we can take some steps forward. Otherwise we are just wasting our time. -- Quiliro Ordóñez 09 821 8696 02 340 1517 No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana ni tendría sentido. Alfredo Pérez Guerrero Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana nem faria sentido. Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
On 07/21/2011 11:49 AM, Rubén Rodríguez wrote: So, what we have here is a program under a proper free software license (ignoring the fact that it recommends non-free stuff) that has actual distribution restrictions. I think trademark licenses that say if you modify it, you have to rename it are ok, but this one says if you don't rename it, you can't distribute it for a fee. * Does it render the program non-free? * How does it affect the software license it ships under? Unfortunately, such a restriction in a trademark license does make the software nonfree. As we've said in the past, a requirement that you rename the software when you modify it is fine -- but a requirement that you rename it before you distribute it commercially goes too far. Changing the name of a program should be straightforward enough for anybody who modifies the software (and if it isn't, that can be problematic too); the same isn't true for people who simply want to distribute it. However, this doesn't affect the software license at all. So if you *can* do the work to remove the trademark from the program, you have free software that you can distribute without these restrictions. That's exactly what GNU IceCat and friends do. * Do you know of any other trademark license that restricts distribution or usability? I'm not aware of any. Best regards, -- Brett Smith License Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation Support the FSF by becoming an Associate Member: http://fsf.org/jf
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
2011/8/3 Brett Smith br...@fsf.org: On 07/21/2011 11:49 AM, Rubén Rodríguez wrote: So, what we have here is a program under a proper free software license (ignoring the fact that it recommends non-free stuff) that has actual distribution restrictions. I think trademark licenses that say if you modify it, you have to rename it are ok, but this one says if you don't rename it, you can't distribute it for a fee. * Does it render the program non-free? * How does it affect the software license it ships under? Unfortunately, such a restriction in a trademark license does make the software nonfree. As we've said in the past, a requirement that you rename the software when you modify it is fine -- but a requirement that you rename it before you distribute it commercially goes too far. Changing the name of a program should be straightforward enough for anybody who modifies the software (and if it isn't, that can be problematic too); the same isn't true for people who simply want to distribute it. what is the end that knuth was seeking by fixing the names?: standars. TeX is not only a software, its a language for describing pages, and Knuth pretends that very old files could behave exactly in the same way trouhgt ages, versions, machines, etc.. So, mantaining names in that files, is a way that everyone that uses official TeX gets the same If free software definition do not aloud that kind of restrictions, we cannot have free software standars instrumentations. Mozilla ends are different, They are trying to stablish a trademark for making money trought comercial restrictions. Thats not compatible with free software. You can make money with your free software but not restricting others to use your project trademarks. ok trademark is not software, so no need to be free. But if they are parts of a software distribution should be free. As FDL in debians packages, they must not have non free parts. They -not us- have easy solutions, modify its project. Or they split their sources in trademarks and software, or they software sources are not free. If they sources are not free we can not make new free sources, because that will not be sources at all. Only solution is to fork or develop a new proyect. Its up to mozilla to separete its non free parts, as is up to linux to put nonfree stuff in another project, as is up to debian to change its vote to non mantain a non free repo in its organization and systems. We must respect these project determinatios, we can make ways to round the problems, but that solutions are not complete. We can distribute compilable non sources, or free executalbes, but not liberate a non free project. However, this doesn't affect the software license at all. So if you *can* do the work to remove the trademark from the program, you have free software that you can distribute without these restrictions. That's exactly what GNU IceCat and friends do. * Do you know of any other trademark license that restricts distribution or usability? I'm not aware of any. Best regards, -- Brett Smith License Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation Support the FSF by becoming an Associate Member: http://fsf.org/jf -- Diego Saravia diego.sara...@gmail.com NO FUNCIONA-d...@unsa.edu.ar Disclaimer: Haré lo que desee con los correos que reciba, quien no este de acuerdo, que se abstenga de enviarme correo a mí o a las listas donde este suscripto. En particular NO VALE ningun disclaimer que indique que el correo enviado es privado o sujeto a normas de empresas, gobiernos, u organizaciones de cualquier tipo. Con relación a los estados y sus leyes, analizare cualquier norma aplicable en el territorio donde eventualmente actúe en el momento, escucho a cualquiera que tenga algo que decir. Con respecto en particular a los derechos de autor, salvo acuerdo previo, gozaré plenamente de las 4 libertades con todo lo que reciba, considerandolo, en cuanto a lo patrimonial, como propio.
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.
[GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
I've just published a Trisquel development release containing Firefox 5.0, and instead of rebranding it I made all the changes in files separated from the Firefox package, in an attempt to avoid making changes to it and falling into trademarks limitations. But I was wrong. Not only my trick wouldn't work, as the trademark license[1] also prohibits the inclusion of external modifiers that would be loaded by the plugin system(!), but as I was pointed out, an unmodified Firefox package which follows the trademark license can't be charged for. So, what we have here is a program under a proper free software license (ignoring the fact that it recommends non-free stuff) that has actual distribution restrictions. I think trademark licenses that say if you modify it, you have to rename it are ok, but this one says if you don't rename it, you can't distribute it for a fee. * Does it render the program non-free? * How does it affect the software license it ships under? * Do you know of any other trademark license that restricts distribution or usability? [1] https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html -- Firefox(TM) is a f** trademark of the Mozilla(R) foundation.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
Rubén Rodríguez wrote: So, what we have here is a program under a proper free software license (ignoring the fact that it recommends non-free stuff) that has actual distribution restrictions. I think trademark licenses that say if you modify it, you have to rename it are ok, but this one says if you don't rename it, you can't distribute it for a fee. * Does it render the program non-free? 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. I think I once heard Stallman say in an audio interview that the Firefox sources were free, but the binary wasn't. That was back when Talkback was still included, but IIRC that's not even what he was referring to. I don't remember if he meant just the non-free artwork or if he mentioned other issues (like this trademark license clause) too. * How does it affect the software license it ships under? You mean the copyright license? AFAIK it doesn't, because they are separate things. * Do you know of any other trademark license that restricts distribution or usability? I only know of licenses that require renaming modified versions. Sam Geeraerts gNewSense developer
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html == If you're taking full advantage of the open-source nature of Mozilla's products and making significant functional changes, you may not redistribute the fruits of your labor under any Mozilla trademark, without Mozilla's prior written consent. For example, if the product you've modified is Firefox, you may not use Mozilla or Firefox, in whole or in part, in its name. Also, it would be inappropriate for you to say based on Mozilla Firefox. Instead, in the interest of complete accuracy, you could describe your executables as based on Mozilla technology, or incorporating Mozilla source code. In addition, you may want to read the discussion on the Powered by Mozilla logo. In addition, if you compile a modified version, as discussed above, with branding enabled (the default in our source code is branding disabled), you will require Mozilla's prior written permission. If it's not the unmodified installer package from www.mozilla.com, and you want to use our trademark(s), our review and approval of your modifications is required. You also must change the name of the executable so as to reduce the chance that a user of the modified software will be misled into believing it to be a native Mozilla product. Again, any modification to the Mozilla product, including adding to, modifying in any way, or deleting content from the files included with an installer, file location changes, added code, modification of any source files including additions and deletions, etc., will require our permission if you want to use the Mozilla Marks. If you have any doubt, just ask us at tradema...@mozilla.com. == so mozilla is not free software you can modify mozilla to get a free software but in that case the source is not free, becouse you will have a non source, source as in linux, the very source is not free, so what is free is not the source, but a modified software that you cannot call source, if you speak by the truth. as in linux, as in debian, or in other mix software, or derivatives, we do not really have free source 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. 2011/7/21 Jason Self ja...@bluehome.net: Rubén Rodríguez wrote: * Does it render the program non-free? 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. That seems to be exactly what it's saying: If you want to distribute the unchanged official binaries using the Mozilla Marks, you may do so, without receiving any further permission from Mozilla, as long as you comply with this Trademark Policy and you distribute them without charge. 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. -- Diego Saravia diego.sara...@gmail.com NO FUNCIONA-d...@unsa.edu.ar Disclaimer: Haré lo que desee con los correos que reciba, quien no este de acuerdo, que se abstenga de enviarme correo a mí o a las listas donde este suscripto. En particular NO VALE ningun disclaimer que indique que el correo enviado es privado o sujeto a normas de empresas, gobiernos, u organizaciones de cualquier tipo. Con relación a los estados y sus leyes, analizare cualquier norma aplicable en el territorio donde eventualmente actúe en el momento, escucho a cualquiera que tenga algo que decir. Con respecto en particular a los derechos de autor, salvo acuerdo previo, gozaré plenamente de las 4 libertades con todo lo que reciba, considerandolo, en cuanto a lo patrimonial, como propio.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox
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 and GNU IceCat. And there are many other free browsers out there anyway. Also, there may not be another operating system but GNU but Linux is _just_ _one_ of its kernels. Regards, Leo -- RMS Rose GNU/Linux-libre http://rmsgnulinux.com.ar #rmsgnulinux @ irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
