On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 09:46:22PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 08:53:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
> > >to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 08:53:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
> >to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly other uses.
> Quite correct. It should be relicensed, under a permissi
Josselin Mouette wrote:
>True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
>to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly other uses.
Quite correct. It should be relicensed, under a permissive copyright
licence, with a note saying:
* This copyright license does n
Le ven 19/09/2003 à 03:55, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> > This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
> > meet the DFSG test?
>
> No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
> Debian distribution.
True, b
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
> meet the DFSG test?
No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
Debian distribution.
Don Armstrong
--
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight
This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
meet the DFSG test?
DFSG 8 says: License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
Yet the logo's license says:
Debian Official Use Logo License
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
1. This logo may only be used if:
6 matches
Mail list logo
