Uoti Urpala writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> DFSG #4 is narrower than the possible actions that could be required by
>> a trademark policy, at least in the way that we've normally interpreted
>> it, since we've not interpreted it as allowing the renaming to affect
>> functional elements of the pr
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Uoti Urpala writes:
> > DFSG allow a rename requirement; this means any trademark policy
> > whatsoever cannot violate DFSG as long as it allows distributing
> > unmodified sources and binaries, as you can always rename and then
> > ignore the trademark policy.
>
> DFSG #4 i
Uoti Urpala writes:
> DFSG allow a rename requirement; this means any trademark policy
> whatsoever cannot violate DFSG as long as it allows distributing
> unmodified sources and binaries, as you can always rename and then
> ignore the trademark policy.
DFSG #4 is narrower than the possible acti
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > 1. DFSG principles should apply.
> >
> > IMO taking this as a starting point is completely wrong. DFSG
> > guarantees that incompetent and malicious people may freely modify
> > the software. For trademark
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 1. DFSG principles should apply.
>
> IMO taking this as a starting point is completely wrong. DFSG
> guarantees that incompetent and malicious people may freely modify
> the software. For trademarks to have any meaning at all,
> dis
Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. DFSG principles should apply.
IMO taking this as a starting point is completely wrong. DFSG guarantees
that incompetent and malicious people may freely modify the software.
For trademarks to have any meaning at all, distributing those modified
versions under the original t
6 matches
Mail list logo
