gt; more with it later.
If I recall correctly, only the submitter of the bug and people
properly blessed can turn on the ask for review flag.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
---
in-source maintainer(s) will also join the party.
--
Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
people sent in a vote.
> Extremists are a minority but a very lound minority as usual which makes
> them often win.
>
> Dictorship of Minorities shall be opposed.
If I minority are the only ones that vote, they get to set the
direction of the project. No sense bitching about that, j
I saw today that the python-minimal package in unstable is tagged as
Essential (and currently pulls in python2.3). According to policy,
this is supposed to happen only after discussion on debian-devel and
consensus is reached, but I couldn't find that discussion in the list
archives.
--
the line
> "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge ./"
>
> to /etc/apt/source.list .
This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTE
otify you through the BTS and/or the bugs were open
for less than a week, then let the chastisement commence!
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3
systems with Hebrew users but with non-Hebrew default locale.
> .
> BiDi options are based on the user's locale. This package sets Firefox
> bidi.browser.ui option to true.
This seems a crazy thing to have an entire package for. Let's see if
we can come up with a better solution.
of
> launchpad which is better. Again, I think it would do a good job keeping
> everything organized an efficient.
> Cheers,
> Frans
AFAIK Launchpad is not free software, so it's not going to hap
hing called nvi instead of vim by default, they
shake their heads and disbelief and next words out of their mouths
either make fun of Debian, or make fun of me (*snif*).
Now we don't necessarily have to pander to these people, but this
change is the sort of thing that will help the change
7;s no fun creating new top-level directories, but moving it
under /lib doesn't really make sense. It more surprising and less
consistent to have it under /lib.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61
has CDBS packages should try rebuilding them, and
> if you can patch the brokenness, submit the patch to bug 342892.
Phew. Thanks for dropping this note. The package I was working on
suddenly stopped building yesterday and I'd thought I'd lost my mind.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL P
rs) in the cache, just the downloaded
files themselves.
Apt-cacher has more flexibility in name mapping, and can integrate (or
not) with an existing webserver. Is that a fair comparison?
--
Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
Suppose someone has reported a bug that the maintainer can't
reproduce, but the reporter can. Is it reasonable for the maintainer
to email the reporter and ask whether a new version fixes the problem,
or is that considered obnoxious?
--
Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u
-
od alternative?
I wrote approx for exactly this purpose. It's now in testing.
--
Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s_0.8-1sarge.dsc: old version (0.8-1) in unstable <= new
version (0.8-1sarge) targeted at proposed-updates.
Rejected: scsitools_0.8-1sarge.dsc: old version (0.8-1) in testing <= new
version (0.8-1sarge) targeted at proposed-updates.
Regards.
E.D.
PS: please cc: me as I'm not reading deb
perfectly capable of handling deletions.)
>
> So, it's a bogus warning. It should be removed from lintian.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Eric Warmenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libnbio
Version : 0.20
Upstream Author : Adam Fritzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
* URL : http://www.zigamorph.net/libnbio/
* License : LGPL
Description : non-bl
oody well be able to figure out
> that they did something wrong and try again.
>
> The fact that a number of these searches wind up at microsoft.com, though,
> when doing a direct google search on the entered string does not, suggests
> there is room for improvement in the auto
-terminal (see
/usr/bin/gnome-terminal.wrapper). So it's reasonable to file a bug
against it for better option-munging to handle this case.
--
Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
snort, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
splint, Samuele Giovanni Tonon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sppc, Mikael Hedin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sweep, Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
swscanner, Andres Seco Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tapiir,
ler?
Perhaps a confusion of "evaporate" with "condense"? (Maybe the
thermodynamic equivalent of an "off by 1" error? :-)
--
Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Eric Lavarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libforms-java
Version : 1.0.5
Upstream Author : Karsten Lentzsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : https://forms.dev.java.net/
* License : BSD
Description
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10350 March 1977, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
You may want to follow bug #311724, which is about exactly this issue.
Understood, but out of my hands; it appears to be a CDBS issue.
Yep, including this feature is a cdbs mistake. Using it is a
re constructive approach
than asking everyone who uses CDBS with debian/control.in to go and fix
their package's static debian/control for absolutely no gain, given how it
will be overwrriten at the next build run.
--
Martin-Eric Racine
http://q-funk.iki.fi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
ishable issues -- one is a presentation format for distribution,
> the other is a means for the work to identify itself.
My problem with it is DFSG 8. If we accept a trademark license, we're
attaching additional rights to the program that are Debian-specific. I
understand that the DFSG wer
* Baptiste Carvello ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> First I wanted to say again that whatever your final decision, a build
> system
> that optionally does the renaming would still be appreciated. It would be
> even
> better if the MoFo would do it themselves, of
* Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> hoi :)
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:18:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific
> > agreement to call Firefox "Firefox".
>
> sure, and the consensus se
ith the DFSG), I would urge you to not keep the
> > > status quo.
> >
> > If Eric were to rename the packages there is the potential for somebody
> > else to package again using the Firefox name. Redundant but useful for
> > our users.
> >
>
> If the MoFo i
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:48:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> [...]
> > So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla
> > Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel
> &
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> >The thread is petering out
>
> Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the
> volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking
> at a conf
* Shachar Shemesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I am not a lawyer.
>
> I am a consultant trying to understand the world he lives in, and as
> such, studied the applicable law a little.
>
> Eric Dorland wrote:
>
> >So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offe
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> >* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >>Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most
> >>prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as "Debian&quo
the issue up again if I see it happening.
Hopefully this will make everyone happy (or at least equally unhappy),
but I think it is the best compromise for the time being, until at
least better policies are worked out with regard to trademarks.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138
Supersedes:", "Takes-Over:", "Drop-In Replaces:",
> "Follows:" ?
Since there should be a unique replacement that old and new package
maintainer(s) agree on, I think the old package (the one being
replaced) should have the header. (Perhaps "Replaced-By:"
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> I'd certainly
>
be interested in trying to develop some sort of policy for Debian
regarding trademarks. I'm not sure how much weight it could carry, but
at least if people like the ideas.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROT
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I wrote:
> > If what we are doing does not actually infringe their trademark we would
> > not be getting any special privileges.
>
> Eric Dorland writes:
> > What we are doing already is against their trademark policy.
* Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 6/19/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I wouldn't say "accept" it, I would say "acknowledge" the safety zone
> > >
s that I found in BR case law were to
> > *advertising* and *misrepresenting* something as being from the wrong
> > origin.
>
> Same in the US.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland writes:
> > We may be their friends, but that shouldn't give us special privileges.
>
> If what we are doing does not actually infringe their trademark we would
> not be getting any special privileges.
What we are d
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland writes:
> > If we don't need the "arrangement", why exactly would we accept it
> > anyway?
>
> Because they want it and it costs us nothing to give it to them. They are
> our friends. Let's acc
* Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 6/17/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Exactly. If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our
> > > users.
> > > And i
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Martin-Eric Racine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: gaim-irchelper
Version : 0.10
Upstream Author : Richard Laager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://so
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> >But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights
> >that the user don't have.
>
> Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most
> prominent among
* Dale C. Scheetz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:16:18 -0400
> Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> >
ey have the legal
> right to do everything that we want to do with or without permission.
>
> So let's accept the "arrangement" and move on. There is no DFSG problem
> here even if we do accept the notion that the DFSG applies to trademarks.
If we don't need the "
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> >* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >>I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages
> >>firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as
> >>
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote:
> > > > Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Well I don't think DFSG #4 says the rename has to be easy, it just
> > has to be possible.
>
> Yes. However, the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming,
> no
* Raphaël Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 14:45 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
> > I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to
> > determine is if we should use the marks within Debian.
>
>
l's
> investigation into this matter, yes. There were several others, too.
Sorry Andrew, which investigation are you referring to? Which other
outcomes? You've got some context there I'm not getting.
> Oddly enough, I *do* know what happened.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PRO
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > > All of
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Jun 16, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to
> > determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. Let me try
> Go
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:23:39PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROT
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:50:44PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > > > > Does the o
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > Indeed the most pragmatic thing to d
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 01:03 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
> > > The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via Gervase in
> > > this long running debate which he has continued to follow despite the
> > >
when they were
> modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a
> license.
That is correct, but (correct me if I'm wrong Gerv), but "change"
would include such things as recompiling it.
> Did I get the wrong end of the stick?
--
Eric Dorland <
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner
> > > consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from
&g
What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages
don't use any of the trademarked images and logos?
> 1: As I'm sure you're aware, it's primarily a nod to TeX et al. and a
> compromise so TeX could be distributed.
> 2: Extra bonus points to whoever
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland
>
> | BTW, any Ubuntu developers care to comment? I'm interested in second
> | opinions and how you guys are handling this situation? Did you accept
> | an arrangement with MoFo?
>
> We've been in tou
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:23:19PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > The MoFo has made no statement that they would grant a trademark
> > license to anyone would adhered to the same standards as Debian. If
> > this were true (and hop
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If we accept it, we've made a Debian-specific deal to distribute that
> > software. Is that acceptable? I don't believe it is.
>
> What I've heard from the Mozi
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Where possible, sure. But "principles" doesn't mean "the rules should be
> > > exactl
the past (TrustedDebian -> Adamantix)
>
> You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you
> either rename it to something else or get permission to call it firefox.
> Doesn't sound non-free to me.
Please explain to me why it's alright to get special p
, because if it did, the
> trademark's owner would lose his or her trademark by trying to abide by
> our policy. Thus, it is my opinion that it should not apply.
This simply isn't true. There are examples of OSS projects granting
trademarks based on test suites and specifications
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 15:27 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
> > > > And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web
> > > > browser, not without Mozilla itself.
> > >
> > > There's s
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:11PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > People seem to be using DFSG 4 as a justification for keeping the
> > name, but I believe that is flawed. DFSG 4 allows for a license to say
> > "if you meet
discussion.
Now, that that is out of the way, can we call it Firefox?
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal
> > > trademarks. If a trademark l
mment about this issue. I *hate*
> legal discussions, licenses nitpicking and haircutting. I understand
> that some people enjoy this and I even understand we need some people
> to do so. But I feel there are enough *real* issues and we probably
> should not begin to invent new one
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:10:06AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > Come on, that can't possibl
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Jun 15, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the priorities
> > > of our users and free software...
> > And where do we strike t
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > As I understand DSFG 8, this covers only the case that the firefox
> > > package
> > > distrib
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Jun 15, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I never claimed the renaming would not be confusing and
> > painful. Sometimes we have to do painful things because they're the
> > right thing to do. I thi
* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 15:12 -0400, Eric Dorland escribió:
> [...]
> > > Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to in the
> > > first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is
must call it (for instance)
> > IceWeasel, and yes, any person downstream from us can call it
> > anything but Firefox or Mozilla or Mozilla Firefox.
>
> BTW, we should remove any gecko based browser too. After all they
> depend in MOZILLA-browser. Not only firefox is going to b
* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 15:35 -0400, Eric Dorland escribió:
>
> > We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their
> > trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a
> > de
s incorrect.
BTW, any Ubuntu developers care to comment? I'm interested in second
opinions and how you guys are handling this situation? Did you accept
an arrangement with MoFo?
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 993
task easier to derived distributions.
We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their
trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a
deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we
accept such a deal as a project? Does the DFSG allow us t
gt; And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web
> > browser, not without Mozilla itself.
>
> There's still Galeon and a couple of others, based on Gecko. Should be
> enough.
Julien, I'm not going to remove Firefox from the distro over this
issue. Let it go, it
it? I
don't think #4 should be used to bypass another one of the guidelines.
Now in the Mozilla case we're not talking about software licenses,
we're talking about trademarks, which makes things murkier. But the
principles should still apply. We're being offered a Debian specifi
efox seems to me like a good idea in the first
> place)
The difference is we have perhaps compromised our principles to keep
calling it Firefox.
BTW, don't be fooled into thinking we'll be able to call it
debian-firefox. If we have to rename it will not be able to include
the string &
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird
> >> from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work
> >> with t
* Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 June 2005 18.21, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> >Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use
> >the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a
> >violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8.
>
> "
DFSG#4: [in terms of
> distributing software,] Debian will not accept or exercise rights which
> cannot be granted to Debian's users.
Proposed extension? Is this actually been on the table before?
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
102
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland:
>
> > 1. Completely ignore their Trademark Policy document and let MoFo come
> > to us if they're not happy with our use of the marks.
>
> This is the policy we have adopted with PHP, Apache and
> si
So if we accept this
> >exception for software coming in, why can't we accept this same exception
> >for software derived from our distribution?
>
> This is basically our position. I include below, for reference, an email
> I sent to Eric 24 hours ago in response to his
ity patch or fix a bug
> > crosses the border. It's not like if we were forking their codebase.
>
> We have permission to apply security patches and fix bugs without
> changing the name.
We (as in Debian) may have the permission, but that permission does
not flow downstream.
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use
> > the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a
> > violation (at least in spiri
how Ubuntu is handling this (not to fan the flames, just to
get a different perspective).
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s
I send
> this email, asking whether or not it would be acceptable for me to
> hijack the abandoned libhtml-mason-perl package.
>
> Any feedback/advise would be appreciated.
I'm pretty interested in this package as well, and I'm willing to
sponsor you.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL
* Philipp Kern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project
> > I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools.
>
>
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:30:56AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
> > > relevant auto* be in
* Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > > Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible
> > > to change any part of th
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland
>
> [Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below]
>
> | I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always
> | a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
> | generally a
* Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:40:26PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> >
> > I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> > bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
>
* Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:49:22PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> > > bad ideas. It makes the bu
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
> bad thing. You should just run automake and/or autoconf on the
> unpacked source and ship i
201 - 300 of 476 matches
Mail list logo
