[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
> I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> > > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > > in
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
>
> That is by far the mos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
> I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> > crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> > are allowed to sell them as Oreo shake
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> > > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > > in
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
>
> That is by far the mos
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> > crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> > are allowed to sell them as Oreo shake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
> Hallo,
>
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
>> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
>
> DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distributi
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose
license explicitly requires a c
Hallo,
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes.
Are you sure they are allowed?
> So there seems to be pre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
> Hallo,
>
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
>> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
>
> DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distributi
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose
license explicitly requires a c
Hallo,
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes.
Are you sure they are allowed?
> So there seems to be pre
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
> allows us to do the s
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
> allows us to do the s
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:46:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > > Firefox" and are cl
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> > Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> > minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
> > of
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.
> Er, that's what a trademark i
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:46:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > > Firefox" and are cl
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> > Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> > minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
> > of
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.
> Er, that's what a trademark i
> It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
> a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
> upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
> Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
> Coty 1924 ( htt
> It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
> a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
> upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
> Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
> Coty 1924 ( htt
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:26:50PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The DFSG has a specific permission for authors to require name
> changes. That's all Mozilla is doing here: requiring a change of name
> for their software.
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be cha
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
> quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
> still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
> by the upstream don't get downrated. But
It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 ( http://laws.f
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:56:47PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
> >>policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
> >>Is Debian's
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:26:50PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The DFSG has a specific permission for authors to require name
> changes. That's all Mozilla is doing here: requiring a change of name
> for their software.
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be cha
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
> quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
> still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
> by the upstream don't get downrated. But
It looks to me (IANAL) like, in US law, Debian has wide scope to alter
a source code product in the course of packaging, and still use the
upstream's trademarks, as long as it is labeled accordingly (and
Debian is not contractually bound not to do so). See Prestonettes v.
Coty 1924 ( http://laws.f
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:56:47PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
> >>policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
> >>Is Debian's
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under r
MJ Ray wrote:
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under review
MJ Ray wrote:
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozil
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
> with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
> you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, bec
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla
> with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that
> you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks.
I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, bec
Nick Phillips wrote:
After all, the same kind of thing is fine for TeX, LaTeX, Apache
What are the exact restriction we have to follow when distributing apache? Where
is this documented? Are those restrictions attached to the copyright file?
Cheers,
Alex
--
GPG messages preferred.
Nick Phillips wrote:
After all, the same kind of thing is fine for TeX, LaTeX, Apache
What are the exact restriction we have to follow when distributing apache? Where
is this documented? Are those restrictions attached to the copyright file?
Cheers,
Alex
--
GPG messages preferred. | .''`.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:13:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Because part of the Mozilla Foundation's strategy to raise enough money
> > to employ people to work on the code involves leveraging the name. I
> > think this is great - because it's not a model which restricts the
> > freedom of the
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark
> policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group.
> Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's
Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm no expert in fund-raising strategies: could you please explain what
you mean?
How can MoFo raise funds by preventing other people from calling
"Mozilla Firefox" a distributed modified version of its XUL-based web
browser?
One example is that we have a deal with Google
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:43:48 + Gervase Markham wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
[...]
> > What I am trying to say is that mozilla is far too eager in
> > enforcing their trademarks. I hope this is because you just think
> > this is needed by law.
> > I hope this is not because you really believe
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
> >trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
> >very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
> >release and dealing w
Alexander Sack wrote:
In contrast, the package you want us to distribute is not distributed by
upstream. You distribute something that is restricted by active
trademark enforcement, which IMHO is non-free, because a trademark
policy is just another way to restrict freedom.
I don't think it's
Don Armstrong wrote:
I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
release and dealing with all of the problems that that would cause for
the us
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
> > which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
> The default build removes the trademarked logos (the fox-on-globe or the
> bird-on-envelope) but not
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we're also distributing files that the user can't modify without
> renaming, so I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. If Mozilla's
> /copyright/ license said "You may not modify this without renaming it,
> unless you have a separate agreement with
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
logos
Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
The default build removes the
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see why. We don't require that trademark licenses be granted to
>> our users in any case - us having an extra permission above and beyond
>> the freedoms we expect for our users doesn't seem to be a problem.
>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> > be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> > seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
> I don't see why. We don't require tha
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
>logos
Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
> - The names can be found in files called b
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
I don't see why. We don't require that trademark licenses be granted to
our users in any
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On 06 Jan 2005 01:30:02 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> > be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> > seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
>
> At present, it seems we re
On 06 Jan 2005 01:30:02 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
>
> Alternatively, if the names are changed to
> firebird/tbird/mozzarella or an
MJ Ray wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without
including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how?
Spotted another thread (mail is slow here this week) and replaced
the branding dir. Rebuild underway. Still need to repla
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without
> including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how?
Spotted another thread (mail is slow here this week) and replaced
the branding dir. Rebuild underway. Still need to replace titlebar?
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
> name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. [...]
Is the right to modify the included mozilla logo to signify that it's
a modified version an "important freedom"?
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that sucks
> - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
> understand that. :-)
Do you? We want the freedom to ship software that MF *thinks*
sucks but we don't. After a
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I don't want to get too far into this conversation until we've
> established whether you will need new names.
Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
seems not
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 00:06:12 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Exactly.
> > DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
> > something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian
> > only, and not to downstream recipients as well
Scripsit Brian Masinick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If they don't like the way we package Thunderbird or any of the
> other packages,
If you'd read the thread you'd have found that the Mozilla people are
quite happy with Debian's packages of their software. The stumbling
block is that they can't promis
Brian Masinick wrote:
"mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in
order to
not infringe their trademarks."
I think plenty of dialog with Mozilla is a good idea. If they don't
like the
way we package Thunderbird or any of the other packages,
I should point out aga
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
It can, especially in the case of a web browser; consider web s
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Right. Material that doesn't provide all the DFSG-required freedoms on
> to recipients other than Debian isn't free. But I don't think DFSG 8 is
> intended to prevent Debian (or some other class of people) from having
> /extra/ freedoms, as long as everyone else has at leas
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:06:12AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> There's some contention over this. Based on the discussion on
>> debian-private that led to the DFSG, I think 8 was effectively shorthand
>> for ensuring that every freedom enumerated in t
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 05:44:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
> > name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
> > use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
>
> It can,
"mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order to
not infringe their trademarks."
I think plenty of dialog with Mozilla is a good idea. If they don't like the
way we package Thunderbird or any of the other packages, I recommend using
really generic names for each of
Gervase Markham wrote:
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
Yes, that's right, but we don't want to be upstream or another
> So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
> name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
> use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
It can, especially in the case of a web browser; consider web servers
that verify that
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:06:12AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Exactly.
> > DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
> > something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
> > and not to downstream recipients
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly.
> DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
> something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
> and not to downstream recipients as well.
There's some contention over this. Based on the discussion on
debia
Francesco Poli wrote:
Exactly.
DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
and not to downstream recipients as well.
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an "important f
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:28:43 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> If those rights are not available - under the same terms - to our
> downstreams (be they users, custom distros... whatever), then by the
> spirit of DFSG #8 (at least IMO), we shouldn't be able to make use of
> them either.
Exactly.
DFSG #8 s
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 11:56:24PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that
> > sucks - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
> > understand that. :-)
>
> Here'
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that
> sucks - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
> understand that. :-)
Here's an idea: a source package that builds either Thunderbird for
Debian or Lightningfe
Francesco Poli wrote:
If these names are unacceptable, I begin to be concerned that users
won't be able to find the right packages or type the right shell
commands, without having to remember weird mutant names from outer
space... :-(
Don't you feel that many users will use that really cool
Sto
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:24:35 + Gervase Markham wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
> > ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
> > sbird - ... derived from Mozilla Sunbird
> > moz - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
>
>
Josh Triplett wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
But isn't the full suite going to be discontinued once the
thermodynamically challenged predator and its stormy avian cousin
reach maturity anyway?
As I understand it, not anymore: there are enough third parties building
upon Seamonkey (the suite) t
Henning Makholm wrote:
> But isn't the full suite going to be discontinued once the
> thermodynamically challenged predator and its stormy avian cousin
> reach maturity anyway?
As I understand it, not anymore: there are enough third parties building
upon Seamonkey (the suite) that it will continue
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 10:20:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> A name for the suite is hard.
> Mozzarella.
Congraulations, sir. You win.
But isn't the full suite going to be discontinued once the
thermodynamically challenged predator and its
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I don't want to get too far into this conversation until
> we've established whether you will need new names. Ideally, I want to
> get a good understanding of the Debian position on trademarks in
> general, and then go to Chris Beard and Mitch
Francesco Poli wrote:
tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
sbird - ... derived from Mozilla Sunbird
moz - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
For what it's worth (and without making any judgement on the legal
weight su
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 10:20:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> A name for the suite is hard.
Mozzarella.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Di
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:20:26 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> As long as we're discussing names
[...]
> A name for the suite is hard.
What about the following ones?
tbird - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
ffox - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
sbird - ... derived from M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>OK, let's say I rename the package to 'somebird' and want to produce a good
>package for debian. Should I use a patched orig.tar.gz or is it ok to
>distribute the source as provided by upstream (of course without the
>trademarked icons) and patch the rest (e.g. thunderb
Alexander Sack wrote:
>So what do they basically want? They basically want us to comply to the
>community editions terms as described in [1]. This implies that we do not use
>any term that reads: "Mozilla Thunderbird". Neither in the package-name nor
>in the application itself.
Correct
>So w
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not the Mozilla authors' decision; "confusingly similar" is a call to
> be made by a judge, and common sense is a strong indicator for this. If the
> Mozilla authors try to claim that "freebird" and "thunderbird" are
> confusingly similar, they
Steve Langasek wrote:
confusingly similar, they should be ignored. (The names "firebird" and
"freebird" could be considered confusingly similar, however; I wouldn't opt
if the question is firebird vs. freebird, this might be a problem, but remember
that they switched to firefox, because they
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 05:35:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't want to negotiate on the names (again) unless we find a
> > solution that has the backup from debian, from the current package
> > maintainers (eric, takuo et al) and mayb
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
>
> Oughtn't that be godsaic?
My understanding of this is a bit shaky, but I'm told by trustworthy
sources that the name of the atomic fire
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
Oughtn't that be godsaic?
--
Henning Makholm "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 08:52:24PM +0100, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> >lightningbug - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
> >iceweasel - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
> >gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
>
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 03:35:00PM +0100, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> >Note that this name change requirement gets interesting to name
> >Mozilla...
> >Mozilla Thunderbird can be "Thunderbird for Debian" or "Debian
> >Thunderbird"
> >Mozilla Firefox can be "Fir
Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't want to negotiate on the names (again) unless we find a
> solution that has the backup from debian, from the current package
> maintainers (eric, takuo et al) and maybe from other free
> distributions. The last group is not accessible to me, sin
Andrew Suffield wrote:
They can't complain about trademarks if the file is the actual
unmodified upstream tarball: accuracy is an ultimate defence against
trademark claims. If it's been modified by removing stuff for
copyright reasons then you might have a problem, depending on how they
restrict
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's a really good idea. I'm not sure, but it looks from previous
messages like you've been communicating with Mozilla Project people
about this. Can you get some of them to agree that these are not
confusingly similar names, to be very clear that they're not like
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
