O Venres, 31 de Decembro de 2004 ás 12:18:52 +0100, Francesco Poli escribía:
> What I wonder is: what is the line between trademarks that are enforced
> in a Free manner and those that are not?
> Or are trademarks entirely orthogonal to Freeness issues? They still can
> be used to impose significa
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 01:28:56PM +0100, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> Why don't I find this non-free? Because trademarks already affect you,
> whether you want it or not. For example, nobody can make a modified copy of
> OpenOffice and change its name to "Microsoft Office" without incurring the
> wrath
* Francesco Poli:
> Or are trademarks entirely orthogonal to Freeness issues?
They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them to be
DFSG-free. The Mozilla trademark license seems to be rather harmless
at that because they give
Florian Weimer wrote:
They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them to be
DFSG-free. The Mozilla trademark license seems to be rather harmless
at that because they give permission to retain the command names.
No, they don
* Alexander Sack:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
>> mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them to be
>> DFSG-free. The Mozilla trademark license seems to be rather harmless
>> at that because they give permission to retain t
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:12:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Alexander Sack:
>
> > Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> >> They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
> >> mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them to be
> >> DFSG-free. The Mozilla trademark license s
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:12:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Alexander Sack:
>>
>> > Florian Weimer wrote:
>> >
>> >> They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
>> >> mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them t
O Venres, 31 de Decembro de 2004 ás 12:59:31 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
escribía:
> > What sort of nonsense is that? What on earth are they trying to accomplish?
> About what Debian seeks to accomplish with the Official Logo: a seal
> or mark indicating quality.
Yes, but the more widely known
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 12:59:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:12:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Alexander Sack:
> >>
> >> > Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> They are not entirely unrelated. The D
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:10:48PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> >They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
> >mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them to be
> >DFSG-free. The Mozilla trademark license seems to be rather harmless
> >at t
O Venres, 31 de Decembro de 2004 ás 13:12:38 -0800, Steve Langasek escribía:
> If we're not doing anything that requires licensing the trademark, a
> requirement in the trademark license to change the command names is
> ignorable.
Well, using the trademark forces us to seek permission (a license
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:44:33 + Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It's not a major problem, because you can generate an unarguably free
> work once by stripping it, and then everybody can modify the stripped
> version instead.
That's true, but...
...what's the difference between a trademark-encumbered
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:56:45 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
> They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
> mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them to be
> DFSG-free.
Yes, but is requiring a global replacing of trademarked strings and
images acceptable?
I mean: it
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:28:56 +0100 Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> In short: yes, trademarks are orthogonal to copyright, ergo to
> copyright license freeness.
Trademark are indeed orthogonal to copyright, but are they orthogonal to
freeness?
Note that I didn't mentioned copyright: DFSG are not limited
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:44:33 + Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It's not a major problem, because you can generate an unarguably
> > free work once by stripping it, and then everybody can modify the
> > stripped version instead.
>
> That's true, but... .
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 12:06:06PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:44:33 + Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > It's not a major problem, because you can generate an unarguably free
> > work once by stripping it, and then everybody can modify the stripped
> > version instead.
>
Francesco Poli wrote:
Second option would require the Debian package maintainer to dig into
the source and play "seek & destroy" with all cases in which the work is
referenced as "Mozilla {thunderbird|firefox}" or in which the official
logo is used...
This seems a bit more than requiring a name c
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 12:06:06PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:44:33 + Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > It's not a major problem, because you can generate an unarguably free
> > work once by stripping it, and then everybody can modify the stripped
> > version instead.
>
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 12:25:25PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> Yes, but is requiring a global replacing of trademarked strings and
> images acceptable?
>
> I mean: it seems that Mozilla is requiring us
>
> * either to comply with strict modification constraints
>
> * or to replace every an
Scripsit Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I should point out that changing the name of Firefox and Thunderbird
> is designed to be easy. Netscape does it with the suite to make
> Netscape, after all. There's a central branding file or two where you
> change the name once and it's picked up al
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:35:34 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> Just as "sweat of the brow" is not copyrightable (in the US), Debian
> has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever declared a package
> "non-free" because it was too much trouble to do something that was
> legal and would render it free. Certai
[Since Sylpheed messed up with the GPG signature, I resend this message
(hopefully) correctly signed; I apologize for this]
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:56:45 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
> They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
> mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems
Francesco Poli wrote:
Yes, but is requiring a global replacing of trademarked strings and
images acceptable?
I mean: it seems that Mozilla is requiring us
* either to comply with strict modification constraints
Not so strict, really. Certainly not to the level of preventing security
patches.
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:15AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >>The Mozilla trademark license seems to be rather harmless
> >>at that because they give permission to retain the command names.
> >
> >Judging from the followups to your message, it seems that this is not
> >the case... :-(
>
>
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * or to replace every and each trademarked reference to the work with
> > something else
> Which isn't too hard, given that we have centralised branding files.
I found and replaced the artwork in my local build, from
mozilla/other-licenses/branding bu
Gerv wrote:
>I should point out that changing the name of Firefox and Thunderbird is
>designed to be easy. Netscape does it with the suite to make Netscape, after
>all. There's a central branding file or two where you change the name once
>and it's picked up almost everywhere.
>
> I'm not sayin
26 matches
Mail list logo
