Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, now that we agreed that those modules need to go into non-free, but that
> provided their licence is clear enough, like in the tg3 case, they are indeed
> distriutable in non-free, let's go back to the initial point.
>
> This is upstream work, and work
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 04:01:12AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:03:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Compare it to including a hexdump of an image or sound in a header
> >> file and including that in the bi
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it an aggregation with the image linked into the binary?
It doesn't matter for Debian's purposes.
While the GPL permits shipping a GPL'd program "merely aggregated"
alongside a non-free program, we don't ship the nonfree part no matter
what,
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:03:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Compare it to including a hexdump of an image or sound in a header
>> file and including that in the binary. And compare it with having that
>> same image or sound as external file sh
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:03:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
> >> > mere
> >> > aggregation of w
Daniel Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:52:01 +0200
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> They have always been a problem and have always violated the license
>> of the rest of the kernel. It is just that nobody noticed or cared
>> before but now the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
>> > mere
>> > aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary file. Those
>> > non-free firmware will
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 12:46:18AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:14:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >> Where people buy their hardware or how free their hardwar
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:14:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Where people buy their hardware or how free their hardware is has
>> >> little to do with Debian main. It is a problem for the linux upos
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't lose track of the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong
> with a sourceless binary if that's all the source anyone *has*.
I think in most of the cases under consideration, we have firmware
which a hardware manufacturer wrote and then
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:14:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Where people buy their hardware or how free their hardware is has
> >> little to do with Debian main. It is a problem for the linux upostream
> >> authors to support the hardware wit
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:32:52PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I am not familiar enough with how library are run, but there is some very
>> > different way in which libraries called by programs wor
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point of my initial message was not to argue: it was that the etch
> timeline is unrealistic, because I see no progress on removing the
> substantial number of sourceless binaries from the Linux kernel source
> package, and it's *after* the kernel
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:32:52PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> And even for an aggregation of works the DFSG holds and you
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And even for an aggregation of works the DFSG holds and you are still
>> in trouble.
>
> Sure, the DFSG says that we need the source code fo
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[snip]
> http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing is grossly out-of-date, but I
> will integrate the relevant information from that in the process.
KernelFirmwareLicensing is supposed to track information about
mis-licensed firmware. IIRC you mentioned to have found a
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:29:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I apologize for responding to Marco's post; in retrospect he was clearly
> trolling and I should not have responded to him.
>
> The point of my initial message was not to argue: it was that the etch
> timeline is unrealistic, beca
I apologize for responding to Marco's post; in retrospect he was clearly
trolling and I should not have responded to him.
The point of my initial message was not to argue: it was that the etch
timeline is unrealistic, because I see no progress on removing the
substantial number of sourceless binar
On 08/02/06 22:17, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Start with drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h. This is distributable, because it's
> under
> a BSD license, but it's not free software, because there's no source code.
There is no source code, because there never was any source code.
What do you think sho
Hallo,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:02:42AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> We can simply take our time to do (2). It is the job of a package
> maintainer to check the licenses of their software; if the kernel team
> cannot do so by December, even with help, I don't mind waiting.
then, please,
Scores in that thread:
who how many
--
A. Spragg 1
A. Thornton1
B. Gerardo 1
D. Dickinson 1
F. Schueler1
G. Danchev 1
G. von Brederlow 4
J.
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:01:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Nope, the issue only surfaced early after the sarge release, a bit
> > less than a year ago, when the new kernel team formed.
>
> It was discussed *before* sarge was released that
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:02:42AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:58:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > 4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitti
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:58:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > 4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitting our
>> > incapacity to fix it with 2 or 3 due to lack of ressources.
>>
>>
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nope, the issue only surfaced early after the sarge release, a bit
> less than a year ago, when the new kernel team formed.
It was discussed *before* sarge was released that there was non-free
firmware in the kernel, and we decided to ignore it for the sa
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:58:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitting our
> > incapacity to fix it with 2 or 3 due to lack of ressources.
>
> We do not need a GR to simply follow our existing
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:57:36AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 2) either move the individual affected drivers or just their firmware if
> > possible to non-free, and keep the cripled kernel in main.
>
> This is certainly the last resort, i
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitting our
> incapacity to fix it with 2 or 3 due to lack of ressources.
We do not need a GR to simply follow our existing procedures.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2) either move the individual affected drivers or just their firmware if
> possible to non-free, and keep the cripled kernel in main.
This is certainly the last resort, in my opinion, but it isn't
"crippled". Merely not supporting particular pieces o
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:49:33PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, it reads to me that we won't screw our users without second
> > thought like some here are proposing.
>
> In my opinion, we have been screwing our users for years by lying to
Daniel Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If permission is given to distribute the blobs unmodified (i.e. read
> from disk, upload to device), then the question is about the social
> contract. Personally I think firmware blobs shouln't be covered,
> because the reasons free software is impor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:52:01 +0200
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They have always been a problem and have always violated the license
> of the rest of the kernel. It is just that nobody noticed or cared
> before but now the cat is
Adam Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My position on non-free firmware is that distributing it certainly
> seems, to my untrained eye, to violate the Social Contract, and this
> needs to be addressed somehow, whether by dropping support for those
> devices, amending the Contract, or seeking
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it reads to me that we won't screw our users without second
> thought like some here are proposing.
In my opinion, we have been screwing our users for years by lying to
them about whether their software was free. We would even say things
like "hard
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> # Our priorities are our users and free software
>
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community.
> We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the
> needs of our users for operation in man
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:04 AM, Joseph Neal wrote:
Why do you think people use debian? It's not the most up to date
distro or the most stable (damn close though). Historically
it's been the most free however.
Hunh. What's more stable?
Although I admire the Social Contract a great deal, and I v
> On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on
> > the devices in question.
> i.e. screwing our users.
>
Why do you think people use debian? It's not the most up to date
distro or the most stable (damn close t
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:39:21AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 06:49:32AM +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:46:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> > >
> > > > On Aug 08, Thomas
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 06:49:32AM +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:46:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> >
> > > On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> We Do Not Distribute
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:46:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
> >> Users.
>
> > Now think about why we
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:26:45PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > untruth in what i said above, or in the other mail ?
>
> Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
> devices in question.
Yeah, well, sure there is,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Now think about why we do not do it.
>> It does not matter. Different members of Debian have different
>> reasons. We have all agreed to work together on the basis of the
>> Social Contrac
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now think about why we do not do it.
> It does not matter. Different members of Debian have different
> reasons. We have all agreed to work together on the basis of the
> Social Contract, which says that We Do Not Distribute Non-Free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
>> Users.
> Now think about why we do not do it.
It does not matter. Different members of Debian have different
reason
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
> Users.
Now think about why we do not do it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
>> devices in question.
> i.e. screwing our users.
We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps O
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
> devices in question.
i.e. screwing our users.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> untruth in what i said above, or in the other mail ?
Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
devices in question.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 06:24:12PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are
> > > > a mere
> > > > aggregation of works inside the same media, i
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
> > > mere
> > > aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary file. Those
> >
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> >>
> >> > On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
> > mere
> > aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary file. Those
> > non-free firmware will never run inside the same memory space as the ker
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>>
>> > On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, th
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:32:11AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > These are fine words, but how do you think they can translate into reality ?
> > We don't currently have the ressources to do it the way it should be don
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:32:11AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> These are fine words, but how do you think they can translate into reality ?
> We don't currently have the ressources to do it the way it should be done, and
> evne if we did, the deficiencies of d-i will make the work we do use
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 04:50:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So, i don't believe there is much choice left to the kernel team in
> > this issue but to ask for a waiver of the DFSG compliance for the
> > kernel for etch, and hope the d-i folk
May I remind you all that debian-release is NOT a discussion list?
I think the respective positions are clear. Now can the release team
please step in and say what their view on the matter is, which AFAICS is
the only reason why this thread should belong to this list?
Gerardo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, i don't believe there is much choice left to the kernel team in
> this issue but to ask for a waiver of the DFSG compliance for the
> kernel for etch, and hope the d-i folk take their responsabilities a
> bit more seriously for the etch+1 release.
Or,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
George Danchev wrote:
> On Saturday 05 August 2006 17:30, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> In linux.debian.kernel Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
true or at least do not consid
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In linux.debian.kernel Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The real issue here is one of freedom and DFSG and not one of legality anyway.
>>Those firmware are not DFSG-free and have nothing to do in main, and this is
>>the real problem.
> They were n
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release
> >> >>team
> >> > I had such a plan,
On Saturday 05 August 2006 17:30, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> In linux.debian.kernel Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
> >> true or at least do not consider it a problem, and this is enough for
> >> me to ignore the opinion of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release team
>> > I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
>> How do you handle the fact that it is a license
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I became a developer long before the NM process was created, and I
> agreed to follow the "unclarified" social contract.
Are you unwilling to follow the current Social Contract? If so, you
should resign, and yesterday.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
> true or at least do not consider it a problem, and this is enough for
> me to ignore the opinion of the debian-legal@ armchair lawyers.
We already know that the lawyers of SuSE and Re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>When I started using Debian, one of the things that made me choose it as
>a distro was the Social Contract and the DFSG[0] that meant I didn't
>have to worry about any of the code in "main". I care about Free
>Software,
Me too. But I never signed up for free firmwares or
In linux.debian.kernel Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
>> true or at least do not consider it a problem, and this is enough for
>> me to ignore the opinion of the debian-legal@ armchair lawyers.
>This position was clear
In linux.debian.kernel Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
>> true or at least do not consider it a problem, and this is enough for
>> me to ignore the opinion of the debian-legal@ armchair lawyers.
>Could they have signed
Marco,
Marco d'Itri Wrote:
>In linux.debian.kernel Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
What can be done about this?
>>>Accept that most people do not consider this a problem?
[snip]
>>You probably agreed to uphold the Social Contract in your Debian work.
>>(Or were you "grandfather
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 02:22:18AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release
> > >>team
> > > I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
> > How do you handl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release team
>>> I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
>> How do you handle the
On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release team
> > I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
> How do you handle the fact that it is a license violation making the
> thing illegal to distrib
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In linux.debian.kernel Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
What can be done about this?
>>>Accept that most people do not consider this a problem?
>>First of all, this is false. Most Debian developers agree with me. You
> This is unproven.
In linux.debian.kernel Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>What can be done about this?
>>Accept that most people do not consider this a problem?
>First of all, this is false. Most Debian developers agree with me. You
This is unproven.
>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More i
>In linux.debian.kernel Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>What can be done about this?
>Accept that most people do not consider this a problem?
First of all, this is false. Most Debian developers agree with me. You
think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the rele
In linux.debian.kernel Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What can be done about this?
Accept that most people do not consider this a problem?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The kernel freeze must be delayed quite significantly for a fairly obvious
reason: the Debian kernel *still* has a lot of non-free and sourceless firmware
in
it. Unfortunately, little to no progress has been made on this.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this is pretty obvious from
78 matches
Mail list logo
