On 10/1/06, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html
One of the permitted changes is Porting the software to different operating
systems
I'm not sure that's what that clause really means, but one easy
example is
On 2-Oct-06, at 2:02 AM, Conrad Knauer wrote:
On 10/1/06, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-
policy.html
One of the permitted changes is Porting the software to
different operating systems
I'm not sure that's what that
* Conrad Knauer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 10/1/06, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html
One of the permitted changes is Porting the software to different
operating systems
I'm not sure that's what that
* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 2-Oct-06, at 2:02 AM, Conrad Knauer wrote:
On 10/1/06, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-
policy.html
One of the permitted changes is Porting the software to
different
To my knowledge, Debian isn't including extra security fixes over
and above what we're shipping. If they are, that would possibly be
considered an act of bad faith between downstream and upstream,
unless the security bug was Debian specific. This type of potential
Firefox from foo is better
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 12:46:10PM -0400, Mike Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To my knowledge, Debian isn't including extra security fixes over
and above what we're shipping. If they are, that would possibly be
considered an act of bad faith between downstream and upstream,
unless the
* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
To my knowledge, Debian isn't including extra security fixes over
and above what we're shipping. If they are, that would possibly be
considered an act of bad faith between downstream and upstream,
unless the security bug was Debian specific. This
On 2-Oct-06, at 1:39 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Backporting security fixes from newer releases is not really extra
in my mind. It'd be fixing stuff that isn't fixed elsewhere without
discussing it with us.
The argument for fixing upstream is that by taking a fix for a bug
that's unpatched
* Conrad Knauer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote: Some changes applied to the debian packages don't
fall in the community edition authorized changes, and there's no way
we want not to apply these.
If you're referring to the list of permitted changes in Community
Editions on
Mike Hommey wrote: Some changes applied to the debian packages don't
fall in the community edition authorized changes, and there's no way
we want not to apply these.
If you're referring to the list of permitted changes in Community
Editions on
Steve Langasek wrote: it seems that ultimately, the only acceptable
solution to Debian would unfortunately be to stop using the firefox
name altogether. So I'm hoping we can find a middle ground
somewhere.
As I understand it, the problem is that Mozilla wants Debian to stop
calling it Firefox
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 03:58:56AM -0600, Conrad Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote: it seems that ultimately, the only acceptable
solution to Debian would unfortunately be to stop using the firefox
name altogether. So I'm hoping we can find a middle ground
somewhere.
As
* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 21-Sep-06, at 1:38 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
If this isn't possible, could we at least get a stay of execution?
Etch is going into deep freeze in less than a month. Would it be
possible to resolve this after the release?
I would think it makes
* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Just to sum everything up, since some of this is getting circular, this
is how we have been dealing with Linux distros. Ultimately, fair is
fair, and unless you think Debian should get a special deal (which I
don't think is DFSG-friendly, let alone
On 21-Sep-06, at 1:51 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
The other issue is if we can still distribute the firefox packages we
already have in sarge. If etch releases as scheduled we will still be
backporting security fixes into that version until Dec. 2007 (or as
long as it is remains possible). Etch
On 21-Sep-06, at 1:38 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
If this isn't possible, could we at least get a stay of execution?
Etch is going into deep freeze in less than a month. Would it be
possible to resolve this after the release?
I would think it makes much more sense to resolve this before you put
Eric Dorland wrote:
Please see Gerv's comments here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00757.html to see
where he agreed we did not have to use the logo.
Fair enough, he did make that statement. At the time, we obviously
weren't taking that part seriously. We are now, and
Just to sum everything up, since some of this is getting circular, this
is how we have been dealing with Linux distros. Ultimately, fair is
fair, and unless you think Debian should get a special deal (which I
don't think is DFSG-friendly, let alone likely to happen) , these are
the conditions
severity 354622 serious
quit
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 12:55:55AM -0400, Mike Connor wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I've confirmed that this isn't acceptable usage of the trademark. If
you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of the
branding.
If Eric's statement that
James Andrewartha wrote:
As for your straw man about security bugs, what security bugs would
you be fixing with your own patches? If there are security bugs,
they should be fixed upstream, not in your own tree. We've had this
discussion repeatedly in the context of the security group, and we
As for your straw man about security bugs, what security bugs would you
be fixing with your own patches? If there are security bugs, they
should be fixed upstream, not in your own tree. We've had this
discussion repeatedly in the context of the security group, and we
expect that branded
Steve Langasek wrote:
Are the Debian logos and trademarks free?
No, the Debian logos are not free. This is considered a bug.
Since there's no way of making the logo free without losing control over
the mark, why not adopt a generic branding switch like we did? Its
non-trivial to
* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland wrote:
Please see Gerv's comments here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00757.html to see
where he agreed we did not have to use the logo.
Fair enough, he did make that statement. At the time, we obviously
weren't
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 04:27:51PM -0400, Mike Connor wrote:
Sorry for dropping this a while back, we didn't have enough bandwidth to
track this down...
Understood; seems to be a common enough problem. :)
The key problem is that
* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry for dropping this a while back, we didn't have enough bandwidth to
track this down...
Eric Dorland wrote:
To my knowledge, each patchset that deviates from what we ship should be
run by whoever is doing licensing approvals (this is in
On 18-Sep-06, at 5:20 PM, Eric Dorland wrote:
This is us attempting to tell you that what you are doing is not
correct
and needs to change. We also need to go over the rest of the
patchset,
but this is the most glaring issue that must be fixed. This came
back
up again when people
* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 18-Sep-06, at 5:20 PM, Eric Dorland wrote:
This is us attempting to tell you that what you are doing is not
correct
and needs to change. We also need to go over the rest of the
patchset,
but this is the most glaring issue that must be fixed.
Sorry for dropping this a while back, we didn't have enough bandwidth to
track this down...
Eric Dorland wrote:
To my knowledge, each patchset that deviates from what we ship should be
run by whoever is doing licensing approvals (this is in progress with
various distributions already). Its
Hi Mike,
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 04:27:51PM -0400, Mike Connor wrote:
Sorry for dropping this a while back, we didn't have enough bandwidth to
track this down...
Understood; seems to be a common enough problem. :)
The key problem is that there is code, and a build switch, that
explicitly
Steve Langasek wrote:
I've confirmed that this isn't acceptable usage of the trademark. If
you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of the
branding.
If Eric's statement that the firefox logos are distributed under a non-free
copyright license remains accurate,
* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland wrote:
severity 354622 important
thanks
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:01:01PM -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
Package: firefox
Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.1-2
Severity: serious
severity 354622 important
thanks
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:01:01PM -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
Package: firefox
Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.1-2
Severity: serious
Firefox (the name) is equally protected and controlled by the same
Eric Dorland wrote:
severity 354622 important
thanks
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:01:01PM -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
Package: firefox
Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.1-2
Severity: serious
Firefox (the name) is equally protected and
Hi Mike,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:01:01PM -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
Package: firefox
Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.1-2
Severity: serious
Firefox (the name) is equally protected and controlled by the same
trademark policy and legal requirements as the Firefox logo. You're
free to use any
Package: firefox
Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.1-2
Severity: serious
Firefox (the name) is equally protected and controlled by the same
trademark policy and legal requirements as the Firefox logo. You're
free to use any other name for the browser bits, but calling the browser
Firefox requires the
35 matches
Mail list logo
