Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 06:05, Adam Warner wrote: > tag 212895 > thanks Note that the sarge-ignore tag has now been removed. I located the correct syntax [tag 212895 - sarge-ignore] in a document referenced from , i.e.

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:48:48PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > I question why the Debian bong should not also be under the same > license. Cool. Where can I buy a Debian bong? -- G. Branden Robinson| If you want your name spelled Debian GNU/Linux |

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

tag 212895 thanks I have attempted to remove the sarge-ignore tag (control is BCCed). Until there is evidence of explicit authorisation from the release manager this appears to be a clear procedural abuse. http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags sarge-ignore This release-critical bu

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

reopen 212895 severity 212895 serious tag 212895 sarge-ignore thanks On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: > The first is (ostensibly) what the bug was filed to deal with, and why > I reopened it. The second is quite definetly out of the scope of the > BTS. I hope for a equitable resolution to

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:42:03PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > I may have misread this thread, but it sounds as if you are trying to > > ignore that such an absurdity exists, rather than fix it. > > Now I confess to being a little slack in the concept of software freedon > (for instance I us

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > What I've been saying is the BTS is the wrong place for solving this > problem. There are (at least) two problems here: 1. The inclusion of bits that are not DFSG free in a package. [The official logo in this case.] 2. The license/copyright/trademark

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

[Mail-followup-to set to debian-project] On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 12:55:41AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > > > It won't happen; it would defeat the purpose of the > > > Official Use Logo.) > > > That purpose being? > > B-R-A-N-D-I-N-G. > M-E-A-N-I-

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, MJ Ray wrote: > I may have misread this thread, but it sounds as if you are trying to > ignore that such an absurdity exists, rather than fix it. Now I confess to being a little slack in the concept of software freedon (for instance I use things like pine and mplayer which are

Re: Early Software Free?

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 02:30, D. Starner wrote: > > > Okay, I have an Algol68 compiler written at Oklahoma State University > > in 1971. (This is not a hypothetical - I have this code, and have > > considered porting it to a more modern system, say

Re: Debian and the GNU Free documentation license

Hi folks, It's been a few days since my last message. I have added a print style sheet, so one can use a free Browser (mozilla) to print the position statement. I have added a couple of new examples, an inchoate software documentation freedoms list, and I have started an outline of the form

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 04:41:32PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-10-04 05:55:41 +0100 Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >The reason I'm being so insistent on this topic, is once again the > >absurdity of not being able to identify an official Debian product > >with an > >official

Re: RFC: GPL plus securities industry disclaimer suitable for main?

* Claus Färber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031005 20:57]: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > > Sorry, but that's not totally true. There was substantial distribution > > via modem networks before (e.g. Fido). IMHO this is equivalent to > > distribution over internet. > According to Germ

Re: RFC: GPL plus securities industry disclaimer suitable for main?

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > Contrawise, if 'illegal' means only 'illegal in your locality' it > isn't a useage restriction. It still is. People sometimes want to do something illegal. A licence that forbids that results in an additonal breach of copyright law. Depending on

Re: RFC: GPL plus securities industry disclaimer suitable for main?

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > Sorry, but that's not totally true. There was substantial distribution > via modem networks before (e.g. Fido). IMHO this is equivalent to > distribution over internet. According to German law, a distribution method is only "known" when its econom

ISO country codes are freely usable

A few days ago, ISO has confirmed that the country, currency and language codes are freely usable: | Ref.: 871 | 30 September 2003 | | ISO reaffirms free-of-charge use of its country, currency and language | codes | | ISO iss

Re: Early Software Free?

On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 02:30, D. Starner wrote: > Okay, I have an Algol68 compiler written at Oklahoma State University > in 1971. (This is not a hypothetical - I have this code, and have > considered porting it to a more modern system, say Fortran 77 targetting > a VAX.) Is it clearly in the publ

Re: GFDL

On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 11:06, Fedor Zuev wrote: > The same (see above) point is not correct for political > speech. Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal > mode of operation and never was. Sure it was. Free copying, modification, etc. of all writing, music, etc. was the

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 08:52:05PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:26:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [...] > > I agree with Richard; I think we should leave the Open Use logo [...] > I'm confused. > > I interpreted Richard as saying that the Official Logo could be unr