On 7/3/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:35:09PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > > > These are two very different cases, th
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:35:09PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > > These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
> > > new root cert, that's
On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
> > new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the
> > security of those users, a
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P
Perhaps I shouldn't have made that flippant comment.
What do you mean you can't? You most certainly can, "just" rewrite the
license to say that red
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >Why can't we leave this to the maintainer or even local admins though?
>
> These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
> new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the
> security
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Simon Huggins wrote:
>> Why does the Mozilla Foundation feel the need to enforce quality
>> through this blunt tool of stopping us using the trademark?
> Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P
What do you mean you
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Simon Huggins wrote:
> >Perhaps anyone the Firefox maintainer/Debian respects and trusts.
> But just because the Firefox maintainer respects and trusts them doesn't
> mean they take ridiculously careful care of their private key. T
Bill Allombert wrote:
1) The name of the package (.deb file if you want). This cannot be
changed with much disruption. Does MoFo claims trademark right on
firefox or mozilla-firefox when used as package name ?
2) files shipped in pathname including the string mozilla-firefox or
firefox, e.g. /us
Simon Huggins wrote:
Do you have a few ideas off the top of your head now of definite things
that cannot be touched?
Everything's subject to negotiation and discussion - see, for example,
my change in position on the SPI cert after consultation within the
project. But here's an attempt to ans
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:01:05AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> 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 were framed in the context of copyright
> licenses, but I think i
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:01:05AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> 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 were framed in the context of copyright
> licenses, but I think i
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:01:05AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
>
> 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 were framed in the context of copyright
> licenses, but I thin
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:38:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free
> > > software context. They don't care about free software. T
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think if DFSG 4 had intended to grant licensors broad latitude to invent
> novel ways of prevent such an inference from being drawn, it would have
> been worded differently -- or, at least, the last two sentences would have
> been.
Bear in mind that
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:38:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free
> > software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care
> > about distributors/vendors.
>
> What
* 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 course. I'm sure some u
* 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 seems to be that there is no problem in
>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:39:05AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Cameron Patrick wrote:
> >I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions
> >which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b)
> >change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:39:05AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Cameron Patrick wrote:
> >I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions
> >which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b)
> >change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the
Salut Gervase!
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:46:55PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Simon Huggins wrote:
> >That's unfair. I would have summarised more as "there's no problem
> >doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes". I don't
> >want Eric to accept the agreement if for every
Cameron Patrick wrote:
I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions
which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b)
change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the packages
unchanged from Debian be required to either ask MoFo for a trade
Gervase Markham wrote:
> We say Debian has a reputation for shipping quality software, and we
> want them to use the trademark. I would hope you guys also want to use
> it, as a well-known free software brand. Why is our recognition of
> Debian's quality used as a negative against that happenin
On 6/27/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > "Presumably" isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they
> > would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone,
> > based on the "quality" criter
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> "Presumably" isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they
> would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone,
> based on the "quality" criteria that is right now only known to the
> MoFo.
How do you judg
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
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 conference in Wolverhampton.
The volume has been pretty light compared to most
Simon Huggins wrote:
That's unfair. I would have summarised more as "there's no problem
doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes". I don't
want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change of code he has to
run to Gervase and ask nicely. (note that's not quite what's happ
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:03:37AM +0200, Martin Waitz wrote:
> 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 seems to be that there is no problem
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 seems to be that there is no problem in
doing so.
It's only you who doesn't want to accept that.
* Andrew M.A. Cater ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:59:09AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is
> > > ultimately yours -- see the Debi
* 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
> > empowered to make an agreement like
* 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 conference in Wolverhampton.
The volume
* 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 offered by the Mozilla
> >Foundation,
* 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" (or
> >>"official Debian", or whatever it
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:59:09AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is
> > ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other
> > words, you
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050626 08:59]:
> In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is
> ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other
> words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I
> would prefer that
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> In any case, since you're the maintainer of the package, the decision is
> ultimately yours -- see the Debian Constitution, §3.1, point 1. In other
> words, you /are/ empowered to accept or reject this deal; and although I
> would p
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 course. I'm sure some users would
feel better if they are able to ponder the risks fo
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
> empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian.
[...]
> If the DPL does not
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
>> empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian.
> If you are not empowere
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 conference in Wolverhampton.
Some very smart developers have come forward to say that trademar
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" (or
"official Debian", or whatever it is you guys use). :-)
When I said rights, I meant rights
John Hasler wrote:
This means that if they don't do something legal to us now, they will
never be able to do anything regarding their trademark to anyone else
ever.
You assume that our usage is infringing. I don't think that is
established.
If our usage is non-infringing, then no con
Shachar writes:
> No, it's quite worse. By ignoring the issue, we are forcing MoFo to
> either sue us or lose the trademark.
They are not forced to sue. They need (at most) only send us a
cease-and-desist letter. They could also decide that our use is
non-infringing and ignore it.
> Just like w
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 offered by the Mozilla
Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel
empowe
The thread is petering out and as much as I had hoped Matthew Garrett
and MJ Ray would go 12 rounds of bare-knuckle boxing, it's time to
make some decisions.
Some very smart developers have come forward to say that trademarks
don't matter with respect to free software. Unfortunately, I'm still
unc
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> And this is my problem with the inclusion of MF's trademark usage in
> our package: the right to include such trademark *is* attached to
> the program (after all, it's the original name of the program (**));
> it's a right that *must* *not* *depend* on the program
* Eric Dorland
| * 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
I wrote:
> The notion that we would be infringing their trademark by failing to remove
> strings that they put in is ludicrous. It's equivalent to Ford demanding
> that I remove all the Ford logos before selling my truck.
Eric Dorland writes:
> Your analogy is flawed. My ford is still a ford
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães writes:
> > (*) I don't even know if US trademark law allows them to go that far...
>
> The notion that we would be infringing their trademark by failing to remove
> strings that they put in is ludicrous. It's equivalent to Ford
Humberto Massa Guimarães writes:
> (*) I don't even know if US trademark law allows them to go that far...
The notion that we would be infringing their trademark by failing to remove
strings that they put in is ludicrous. It's equivalent to Ford demanding
that I remove all the Ford logos before s
** Anthony DeRobertis ::
> Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
>
> > Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #8 -- witch is part of the SC, IIRC --
> > forbids us to have rights that our users don't have.
>
> No, it doesn't. It says:
>
> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the
> program's being
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #8 -- witch is part of the SC, IIRC --
forbids us to have rights that our users don't have.
No, it doesn't. It says:
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
being part of a Debian system. If the program is
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Lack of choice of venue imposes a burden on the licensor in case of
litigation - I see no reason why one is obviously free and the other
non-free.
No, lack of choice of venue generally imposes a burden on the plaintiff,
who may be either the licensor or the licensee.
On 6/18/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're skipping the crucial point here. Under the publicly available
> licenses/policies, we *cannot* call it Firefox. The MoFo is offering
> us an agreement that allows us to use the mark. I think agreeing to
> this is against the spirit of DFS
* 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 them being to label a Linux distribution as
* 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:
> > >
> > > > > It's an important part in evaluating the balance bet
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:
> >
> > > > It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the
> > > > priorities of our users and free software.
2005/6/17, Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> The ironic thing is, even if we do rename, who is going to do the trademark
> search to prove that the new name we choose is not someone else's trademark
> who we do NOT have permission to use?
I doubt this is relevent. Unless there is another *b
* 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
> >>long as they didn't then change them
* 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 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écri
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:47:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being
> > > forced to change content.
> > If I change the name of my program, I
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being
> > forced to change content.
>
> If I change the name of my program, I also change all references to
> that name in program (if for no other
* 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,
> not being forced to change content.
U
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,
not being forced to change content.
Don Armstrong
--
Build a fire for a man, an he'll be wa
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 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit :
> > > > > You could also, as a courtesy to other
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 them being to label a Linux distribution as "Debian" (or
"official Debian", or whatever it is you g
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
long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were
modified that they potential
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:10:34PM +0200, Wouter van Heyst wrote:
> > 4) make the program's branding depend on argv[0].
>
> Do trademarks only apply to binaries, or to source also? A running
> firefox will prominently display the trademarked bits in question, but
> hey, the source being open for
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:07:33PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:18:29AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
> >
> > 1) rebrand mozilla-firefox
> > 2) create a permanent "transition package" with the firefox name
> > that depends on it
> > 3) use alternatives to provi
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:18:29AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
>
> 1) rebrand mozilla-firefox
> 2) create a permanent "transition package" with the firefox name
> that depends on it
> 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox
>
> The description of the transition package should br
* 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.
>
> If it's free, the project as a whole has a
* 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 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit :
> > > > You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the
> > > > stunningly obvious proof that a fre
On Friday 17 June 2005 17:08, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they
> are ready to give us this right because they trust us). Of course the
> right is revocable ... but that doesn't matter. When they decide to stop
> granting us this right
Donald J Bindner writes:
> 2) create a permanent "transition package" with the firefox name
>that depends on it
> 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox
Thereby attaching the name "Firefox" to something which is not pristine
Mozilla code. This is exactly what it is being claimed we m
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote:
> Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit :
> > > You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the
> > > stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use
> > > trademarks automa
Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit :
> > You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the
> > stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use
> > trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state.
>
> That would be the part whe
I've only been skimming this thread, so I fear this may have been
said. What about:
1) rebrand mozilla-firefox
2) create a permanent "transition package" with the firefox name
that depends on it
3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox
The description of the transition package shou
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:54:40AM +0200, Miros/law Baran wrote:
> 17.06.2005 pisze Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The "S" in
> > DFSG does not stand for "copyright", it stands for "software".
> > Software usually contains cop
17.06.2005 pisze Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The "S" in
> DFSG does not stand for "copyright", it stands for "software".
> Software usually contains copyrighted code, and sometimes it also
> contains trademarked names or images
> We explained you that your reasoning was ill-advised because DFSG
> stands for "DF Software G" and not "DF Trademark G". What can I say
> more ?
I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The "S" in
DFSG does not stand for "copyright", it stands for "software".
Software usually
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.
If it's free, the project as a whole has already decided to be able to
include it. For the rest, it's
* 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 MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manne
* 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
> Good. This was not obvious at all by reading your precede
* 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 PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > > Where poss
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
Good. This was not obvious at all by reading your precedent postings.
> another example. If, say, the Apache
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 MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner
> > > > consistent with trademark law[2] would have
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 PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > Where possible, sure. But "principles" doesn't mean "the rules sh
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:00:17PM -0400, 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.
We are only concerned with the rights that apply to the software, not the
name. The users have all of the same rights to the software
* 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 opposite make it worse? I think so.
>
> >
El Jueves 16 Junio 2005 18:11, Russ Allbery escribió:
[snip]
> That being said, we absolutely should not allow the trademark issue to
> give MoFo any more of a veto on package changes than any other upstream
> would have. If we feel we need to make a change to improve the package
> for our users a
* 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 do is to keep the name. But you
>
* 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
> > > criticisms levelled at him/the
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > That there is such a hue and cry over rebranding Firefox in Debian
> > > indicates to me that it *is* a significant burden we would be (an
* 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
> > > the work,
> >
> > What
Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Second, the real problems with rebranding are not with the technical
>> work that has to happen, from the sound of it. They're with user
>> recognition and the ability of users to find the
Simon Huggins wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the
CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our
ca-certificates package. However I can't
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That there is such a hue and cry over rebranding Firefox in Debian
> > indicates to me that it *is* a significant burden we would be (and are
> > now) asking of our downstream users.
> Se
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 do is to keep the name. But you
> > > don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozil
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
> > criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. Obviously if they
> > turn aroun
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
> > the work,
>
> What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packa
1 - 100 of 290 matches
Mail list logo