On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:33:30AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > You've forgotten something. The military act as if they are above any
> > laws. (If they cared about obeying laws, they would be disarming nuclear
> > weapons under their international treaty obligations)
>
> On the contrary.
Andrew writes:
> You've forgotten something. The military act as if they are above any
> laws. (If they cared about obeying laws, they would be disarming nuclear
> weapons under their international treaty obligations)
On the contrary. The "military", at least in the US and the UK, act in
ac
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 07:26:19AM -, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> Avery Pennarun wrote:
> >What if someone gets hold of the Linux kernel and uses it to guide nuclear
> >missiles? (Well, at least they have to share their changes with us :))
>
> Only if they distribute the control systems :>
You'v
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 03:37:57AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> to either of these animals. We have our own message, too. We are
> constructors. We take the work of thousands of people and put them together.
> Shouldn't this be reflected by the logo, too?
You mean like a penguin wearing a har
All:
Please pardon my non-developer comment, but one thing about the license has
bothered me for a while, and I've seen no else bring it up:
Do we really want to limit the maximum size of an entity that can display
the license?
Points 2, 3, & 4 of the license state, roughly, that yo
Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> is the name debian a registered trademark?
I think so.
> if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo?
I agree. I think trademarking the logo will allow us to prevent misuse and
at the same time allow us to give it a DFSG-free copyright.
--
see shy jo
James A. Treacy writes:
> Even with the existing license (and a valid expiry date) I have probably
> handled 20 requests for use of the logo in the last 6 months.
Doesn't seem like many considering that the present license encourages
requests. Do you really think that forty people a year would en
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:35:50PM -0600, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote:
> > Larry Ewing and Tux. You don't see him writing a license, do you?
> The picture of Tux is licensed freely for any use as long as Larry
> Ewing is mentioned. Don't know about modification, t
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 06:20:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
> Or don't license it: just use it on Debian stuff and grant individual
> licenses on a case by case basis. I doubt that you will be swamped by all
> the requests.
>
I'm glad to see you volunteer to take respond to requests that come
Andrew G . Feinberg writes:
> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_?
I wrote:
> We don't.
Darren Benham writes:
> Of course we do. Otherwise we'd have to grant permission to every
> tom-dick-harry that wanted to use it in any way-shape-form.
I meant, of course,
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:32:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> The existence of a recurring discussion usually indicates an unsolved
> problem. A vote might or might not resolve the underlying issue.
>
Let's hope that there is enough interest generated that we actually do
solve the problem.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24-Jan-99 John Hasler wrote:
> Andrew G . Feinberg writes:
>> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_?
>
> We don't.
Of course we do. Otherwise we'd have to grant permission to every
tom-dick-harry that wanted to use it in a
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the
> > DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
> >
> Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines. A logo is not software.
> It may well be that we want a l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
is the name debian a registered trademark?
if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo?
- --p.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNqt2MUJhnFR90XSjAQHeFAf9EULUklt0QfjI2DAbrPK2
James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope that you are not trying to argue that there is no difference
> between a program and a logo. This is clearly ridiculous.
That's not my point. However, the definition of "software" is broad
enough to cover both, and the use of that particular wor
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 01:42:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply
> > > with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
>
> James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply
> > with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines.
You're trying to ma
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:35:50PM -0600, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote:
> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a
> _logo_?
Because if we don't, nobody has the right to make copies of it and
display it publically. It's the same reason as with software.
> as a normal person
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > "You are licensed to use and distribute modified versions of this logo to
> > refer to or advertise debian."
> >
> > Note that this fails DFSG point #6. I believe this was the original intent.
>
> We shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24-Jan-99 Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:48:00PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
>> > Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free
>> > logo. FREE
Andrew G . Feinberg writes:
> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_?
We don't.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you ca
Robert Woodcock wrote:
> "You are licensed to use and distribute modified versions of this logo to
> refer to or advertise debian."
>
> Note that this fails DFSG point #6. I believe this was the original intent.
We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the
DFSG. To d
Avery Pennarun wrote:
>What if someone gets hold of the Linux kernel and uses it to guide nuclear
>missiles? (Well, at least they have to share their changes with us :))
Only if they distribute the control systems :>
>Seriously, slander is slander, and it's rude, and people will know it when
>th
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:48:00PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free
> > logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-)
>
> And what if some anti-debian people ge
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:52:12 +0100, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Wichert> [1 ] For the Nth
Wichert> time our logo license has expired. It might be a good idea
Wichert> to finally finalize the license instead of just extending
Wichert> its lifetime every couple of mon
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:55:56AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Agreed. Shall we move the logo license discussion to debian-legal and
> rewrite it there?
Explain:
Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a
_logo_? I havent been a developer for a long time, but it
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:54:14AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > * It is a penguin (even if some think it's a chicken). A penguin is already
> > the Linux logo, are we only capable of plagiarism, or are we up to the
> > task
> > and have an identi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Darren Benham wrote:
>> The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no
>> other
>> reason but to remove the expiration date.
>
> Okay, so I should have read the license before posting th
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> * It is a penguin (even if some think it's a chicken). A penguin is already
> the Linux logo, are we only capable of plagiarism, or are we up to the task
> and have an identity of our own?
Heh, nobody seems to be able to spot that :)
> * A penguin is submi
Previously Chris Waters wrote:
> Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free
> logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-)
Agreed. Shall we move the logo license discussion to debian-legal and
rewrite it there?
Wichert.
--
==
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
>On 23-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>> license.
>>
>
>The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other
>reason but to remove the expiration date.
Note t
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
>Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>> license.
>
>I very much dislike the current license. I'm a debian developer, I'd
>like to put the debian logo on my home page, but I do *not* necessarily
>wa
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free
> logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-)
And what if some anti-debian people get ahold of the logo and use it for
evil purposes?
--
Stephen Crowley
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>license.
I think this is a good idea. If this proposal needs to be seconded,
consider this my "seconded!".
If it needs to be seconded somewhere else (debian-vote?) i'll do so
there :)
Previously Darren Benham wrote:
> The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other
> reason but to remove the expiration date.
Okay, so I should have read the license before posting that :). Should
we change anything besides removing the expiration date? So far nobody
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 23-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
> license.
>
The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other
reason but to remove the expiration date.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
> license.
I very much dislike the current license. I'm a debian developer, I'd
like to put the debian logo on my home page, but I do *not* necessarily
want to devote half or more of my home page to debia
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:52:12AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> There has also been mention of people wanting a different logo. I think
> we should stick to our current logo for several reasons though:
>
> * it is a good logo: it's easily recognizable, simple to draw, scales
> good and
38 matches
Mail list logo
