On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion:
> that the license texts which have restrictions on modification are
> non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian
> against the Social Contract.
License texts which are be
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
> For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
> troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
> is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code.
Hello,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> (There is a special exception for the license texts and similar legal
> documents associated with works in Debian; modifications and derived
> works of these legal texts do not need to be allowed. This is a
> compromise: the Debian group encourages authors of
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:11:57 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > To use them as long as there's no confusion going on.
> > If a logo means endorsement, you cannot use it on non endorsed
> > products.
>
> If the license works like this, I cannot take the official logo
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:19:19 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > The mere fact that I use the name and logo of the project can't
> > be reason enough to assume affiliation or association.
>
> Mmmh, the Debian Official Use Logo implies endorsement by the Debian
> Project.
Ye
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:19:19 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > > Ok, then I would suggest moving that out of the first sentence and
> > > into a new paragraph. "The above exception only applies for the
> > > s
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > Ok, then I would suggest moving that out of the first sentence and
> > into a new paragraph. "The above exception only applies for the
> > situations described in Exhibit Z". Then you can write an Exhibit Z
> >
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks.
In the US:
The word "Debian" is a regestered trademark of SPI. Or more accurately, the
word "Debian" is a trademark registered by SPI on behalf of the De
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:06:22 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> > Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
> > interpreted?
>
> Amazingly few, but yes,
[...]
> Licences are another type of greyness: unlike Mozilla's software, it's
> very
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > > Yes, these are vague criteria but that is to a certain extent
> > > inherent in trademark law. You don't know what people will do
> > > and how
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:59:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
> For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
> troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
> is licence-incompatible with all
Nathanael Nerode writes ("Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text
licensing / freeness issue"):
> Alternate suggested GR text:
> ---
> The Debian Project notes that many license texts are copyrighted
> works, licensed only under meta-licenses which prohibit the cre
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:26:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hrm, there is a difference between *referencing* a trademark when
> > criticizing the holder, and *using* the mark, in trade, in a way that
> > reflects badly on Debian. [...]
> Two data points
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hrm, there is a difference between *referencing* a trademark when
> criticizing the holder, and *using* the mark, in trade, in a way that
> reflects badly on Debian. [...]
Two data points:
SJVN's use of the debian trademark when criticising the distrib
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
> interpreted?
Amazingly few, but yes, as some of it is based on guessing how
still-changing legal systems are developing, or how particular licensors
will react to our actions.
At least twi
15 matches
Mail list logo
