* Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-02-20 18:17]:
I'm wondering whether there has been any progress on the Debian Open
Use Logo issue...
There has been some progress. Gregory Pomerantz, SPI's legal council,
has written a copyright assignment agreement and the arist of the logo
has agreed
* Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-02-21 22:33]:
Any plans for the trademark side of the issue?
I asked Matthew Garrett to work on an appropriate license. He sent a
mail to spi-trademark in August (and a follow-up in September) but it
never went anywhere. I'll ask him to send another
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-24 02:25]:
Would you kindly let me know whether you intend to retract the above
snarky personal attack, issued in your formal capacity as Debian
Project Leader and grounded upon a questionable recollection of the
facts, given that even after nearly
In September, I was approached by an important research institute in
Germany about a new software license, d-fsl. They are interested in
making sure that the license conforms with both the Open Source
Definition as well as the DFSG and have asked for out input. When we
originally started the
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-14
20:55]:
Definition as well as the DFSG and have asked for out input. When we
originally started the discussion, the license had not been published
so I asked Don Armstrong and Matthew Garrett privately to comment
* David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-17 15:23]:
The Debian Open Use Logo License is generally considered to be
non-DFSG free. However, it appears to be a widely held belief
that Debian should have _some_ logo that is DFSG-free, and that
the license of the open logo should be changed to
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-12 02:46]:
IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen.
It's interesting that you say that, Mr Robinson. Last time I
suggested that -legal should
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 02:55]:
Okay, fair enough. Archive administration is done by those who roll up
their sleeves and do it -- the people on other end of
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
By the same token, public DFSG-based analysis of licenses and how they are
applied to the
* Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-11 18:01]:
I'm willing to take on a position to summarize our discussions,
and present them to upstream. I think I can do this diplomatically, and
I have some experience with this. (I was responsible for ironing out
Thanks.
--
Martin Michlmayr
* Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-12 09:17]:
Hands up anyone who wants to take on the job of official d-legal summariser.
I
can think of a few people who *could* take the job, unfortunately, those
qualified also tend to be those most qualified in other areas.
I certainly *don't*
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-12 00:01]:
Of course, perhaps the best thing for -legal to do is have people
self-nominate themselves to this position, and then have a small
vote.
Hmm.. do we really need to have a single person charged with writing
all of the summaries?
No,
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-13 04:09]:
Hm, that would involve somebody monitoring the OSI lists, because an
Are the OSI lists public (sorry, cannot check, I'm off-line at the
moment waiting for my plane to Malaga)? Is anyone from -legal
following them already?
unsolicited
* Daniel Quinlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-24 11:17]:
Specifically, I suggest:
1. a single place where review requests should be sent
2. review requests are posted to debian-legal for general discussion
3. an official entity, either a committee or a trusted individual who is
able to
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-12 01:03]:
Usually, when we talk to upstream authors, we try to be careful not to
sound as if we think that we can *demand* that they change their
license. We try to stress that the upstream author is perfectly
allowed to set non-free terms for his
- Forwarded message from Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:33:17 -0800
To: announce@apache.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
The Apache Software Foundation is
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-10-25 18:37]:
Can you explain what the policy is for which non-freeness issues
*will* be regarded as sarge-ignore?
...
It is difficult, from these data, to discern what exactly the policy
for sarge-ignore and licensing issues is.
I'm afraid I cannot
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-10-01 13:29]:
I don't have any problems with Don personally, but I personally
would rather we had a full-fledged Debian Developer as our other
delegate to this committee.
Branden and I have spoken about this on IRC a few days ago, but I also
wanted to
Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the
license changed?
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-27 10:53]:
The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding
the FSF - Debian discussion:
I wholeheartedly support the formation of this committee. In order to
foster the discussion, I am willing to pledge some of Debian funds for
the
* Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-28 16:35]:
A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
serve well -- Branden Robinson would, I suspect, be objectionable to
the FSF, and Thomas Bushnell is
20 matches
Mail list logo
