On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:43:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that we can't make requirements or recommendations on others
> trademarks without applying them to ourselves.
Right. And in fact the proposal I've drafted applied equally to us as it
applies to other. In fact, part of the "e
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:43:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Compared to other organisations (Linux Foundation, Python Software
>> Foundation, GNOME Foundation, etc…), we do not have a clear trademark
>> license or policy.
> (Which alone shows that defending re
On 13/02/12 17:40, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Although I'd like to hear your comments before deciding, my advice is to
accept the invitation and have Debian join OSI. My rationale for that is
twofold:
Mozilla is becoming an OSI affiliate, and I am Mozilla's representative
to the OSI. I would lo
On 20/02/12 03:43, Craig Small wrote:
That all sounds like a good reason to reject this hypothetical package.
Retrospectively being able to change the trademark terms sounds like a
"tentacles of evil" problem.
Surely only if the "remove the trademark now, please" command has some
effect on the
Gervase Markham
> If you read the OSI discussion lists, you'll certainly find senior
> figures in that movement regretting previous decisions, e.g. about
> particular license approvals. Having groups like Debian involved seems
> to me that it will reduce the likelihood of more of that happening
On 20/02/12 16:12, Charles Plessy wrote:
I support dropping our trademarks. We have to show the way. We have a strong
tradition of idenfifying ourselves via trusted information networks that are
under our control; mostly our keyring. We can also make a step further and
include links (possibly
On 19/02/12 16:57, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
At the same time, even when we are *allowed* to keep something trademark
encumbered in the archive without rebranding (either because we
distribute it unchanged, or because the associated trademark policy is
fine with the kind of changes we're interest
Gervase Markham
> On 20/02/12 03:43, Craig Small wrote:
> > That all sounds like a good reason to reject this hypothetical package.
> > Retrospectively being able to change the trademark terms sounds like a
> > "tentacles of evil" problem.
>
> Surely only if the "remove the trademark now, please"
Le Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:05:32AM +, Gervase Markham a écrit :
> On 20/02/12 16:12, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >I support dropping our trademarks. We have to show the way. We have a
> >strong
> >tradition of idenfifying ourselves via trusted information networks that are
> >under our control;
Uoti Urpala
> [...] A meaningful trademark license cannot permit everything
> permitted under the DFSG; at some point you do have to rebrand the
> software and remove use of trademarks to be allowed to further
> exercise DFSG freedoms (a limitation allowed by DFSG 4).
Hi! This looks like the unpr
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:14:47AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> I think it would be great for Debian to develop some guidelines as
> to what sort of things are OK, and not OK, in a trademark license in
> order for Debian to be happy with shipping it. That could include
> such provisions as:
Thi
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:56:02 +, Gervase Markham wrote:
...
> If you read the OSI discussion lists, you'll certainly find senior
> figures in that movement regretting previous decisions, e.g. about
> particular license approvals. Having groups like Debian involved seems
> to me that it will
On 21/02/12 10:36, MJ Ray wrote:
Does the presence of those two sentences in a README make the software
non-free?
Yes! Firstly, the paragraph should allow its retention with a
different name as the endorser. DFSG 3: Derived Works.
That seems a little hair-splitting. A) I'm not sure it doesn
On 21/02/12 10:55, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Aren't you confusing trademark policies (the position of trademark
owners on what we'll be considered infringement and what won't) with
trademark licenses (one-to-one agreements between trademark owners and
users, that allow the latter to use the trade
On 21/02/12 10:08, MJ Ray wrote:
Words are cheap. When will OSI revoke some of the bloopers?
Philip also made the same point. You'd need to ask them. I can speculate
wildly:
- They currently have no process for revocation of status;
- Most of the bad ones are hardly used at all, making it
On Feb 21, 2012, at 12:29, Philip Hands wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:56:02 +, Gervase Markham
> wrote:
> ...
>> If you read the OSI discussion lists, you'll certainly find senior
>> figures in that movement regretting previous decisions, e.g. about
>> particular license approvals. Havi
Hi,
I think -project@ might be a better list for this.
On 02/21/2012 03:14 PM, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> The info. I'm looking for is the physical infrastructure as to the
> kinda specs (hardware specs of the machines) on the network are and if
> they are located at diverse locations (or not).
[DB
in-line :-
2012/2/21 Ansgar Burchardt :
> Hi,
>
> I think -project@ might be a better list for this.
>
> On 02/21/2012 03:14 PM, shirish शिरीष wrote:
>> The info. I'm looking for is the physical infrastructure as to the
>> kinda specs (hardware specs of the machines) on the network are and if
>>
Gervase Markham writes:
> On 21/02/12 10:36, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Secondly, it allows retrospective amendment: I'm sure such licences
>> have been rejected in the past (often called the "tentacles of evil"
>> test). Non-permanent licences that could start failing DFSG 1 or 3 at
>> an arbitrary-but-u
MJ Ray writes:
> Uoti Urpala
>> [...] A meaningful trademark license cannot permit everything permitted
>> under the DFSG; at some point you do have to rebrand the software and
>> remove use of trademarks to be allowed to further exercise DFSG
>> freedoms (a limitation allowed by DFSG 4).
> Hi!
Jeremiah Foster writes:
> I think there is room to join OSI as an observer of some kind and
> explicitly say to them that they don't get to use a Debian stamp of
> approval in their marketing material.
Yes, this.
I think it's fine, and even a good idea, for Debian to join closely
related projec
On 02/21/2012 12:32 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Or make joining OSI conditional upon some sort of purge of icky licenses
>> on their side.
>
> We would need to start by identifying the licenses that we care enough
> about to demand that they be purged. I suspect that list may be of zero
> size, m
Jose Luis Rivas writes:
> This is what I asked for before, but what MJ Ray gave me was just one
> license and Josselin didn't answered. And MJ didn't saw a reason for
> making a list.
> There's a lot of "there must be a purge of licenses" arguments, but
> which ones?
Yes, I agree. If we have c
Hello everyone,
As previously announced on debian-policy and a few other lists, I am going
to upload Debian Policy 3.9.3 tomorrow. As previously announced, this
will be the first release with a version of the machine-readable
debian/copyright specification that can be considered official. It wil
I am applying the following patch to the copyright format document in
Debian Policy to roll up changes from recent discussions. This includes
the following changes:
Clarify that this document does not supersede or modify the
requirements in Policy and that use of the specification is
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The Debian Projecthttp://www.debian.org/
Debian Position on Software Patents pr...@lists.debian.org
February 19th, 2012http://www.debian.org/News/2012/20120219
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 01:08:28PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 21/02/12 10:08, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Words are cheap. When will OSI revoke some of the bloopers?
>
> Philip also made the same point. You'd need to ask them. I can speculate
> wildly:
>
> - They currently have no process for revoc
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:03:35AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> "This software and its derivatives are endorsed by Gervase Markham,
> until such time as he withdraws that endorsement for a particular
> derivative. If he does so and informs the maintainer of that
> derivative, this paragraph must
I've finished reading through the entire current copyright format document
and am applying the following editorial changes to clarify wording and to
add a few more examples and repetition of key information to make the
document easier to follow.
I should say up-front that I realize that this is so
Russ Allbery writes:
> @@ -869,8 +908,12 @@ Copyright 2009, 2010 Angela Watts
> GFDL
>
>
> -GNU Free Documentation License 1.0, or
> -http://spdx.org/licenses/GFDL-1.1";>1.1.
> +GNU Free Documentation
I've applied a subsequent patch to reformat copyright-format to avoid
lines longer than 79 characters to make it easier to maintain going
forward, and to fix one section that wasn't indented to follow the XML
structure. I've also changed "signaled" to "signalled" on further
consideration since Bri
Le Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 09:36:28AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> I do think we should, if we join, state publicly (in whatever press
> release we generate announcing our membership) that Debian is not adopting
> the OSI license review process for Debian and that Debian will continue to
> condu
Craig Small writes:
> Now, the only difference is the fix. For a license it is removing the
> package for a trademark it is renaming, maybe. Sentences like that are
> exactly why our proposed trademark policy should be what it is.
I'm confused. What distinction are you drawing of license versus
On 02/22/2012 02:09 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 09:36:28AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>>
>> I do think we should, if we join, state publicly (in whatever press
>> release we generate announcing our membership) that Debian is not adopting
>> the OSI license review process
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:09:56PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Craig Small writes:
> > Now, the only difference is the fix. For a license it is removing the
> > package for a trademark it is renaming, maybe. Sentences like that are
> > exactly why our proposed trademark policy should be what it is
35 matches
Mail list logo
