On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:32:50PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> doc-linux: GFDL, GPL, OPL, PD
Keep in mind that the GFDL and OPL are only uncontroversially DFSG-free
if they don't contain unmodifiable text, aside from the text of license
document itself.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:44:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As usual, you fail to notice the part where you then go on to refuse
> to consider any alternatives,
For instance:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"> * It's unjustified. Why 32,768 bytes? Why not 32,000 bytes?
You want 32,000
If there's a library in non-US because of some issues with exporting
cryptography, and I have a simple program that links with that
library, must my program also be in non-US?
If I'm located in the U.S.A., is there something special I need to do
before I upload to non-US, preferably something simp
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Granted. I assumed that a name as prominent as 'GNU' would have been
> trademarked, but it seems I was mistaken.
It hasn't been registered, but it might well qualify as a common law
trademark in at least some jurisdictions. Trademarks do not have to
I'm not sure I made my point very clearly. I'll try again.
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 05:37:10PM -0500, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > We make no restriction that Debian GNU
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:23:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Sometime in the next few years you might like to consider if there's a
> > more effective way to build consensus than your modus operandi.
> Yes, certainly posting a proposal to a public forum which presumably
> would be comprise
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:32:50PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:27:58PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:48:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > I haven't followed the discussion in detail, but I understand the
> > > problems are with invariant
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be
started?]
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:36:3
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:27:58PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:48:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I haven't followed the discussion in detail, but I understand the
> > problems are with invariant sections used on anything but rather small
> > sections of text (typic
Hi, Thomas!
On Monday, 3. December 2001 23:05, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If you want to take a bunch of Debian packages and port them
> to windoze, feel free! All I ask is:
>
> 1) Don't call it GNU.
> 2) Don't call it Debian.
> 3) Don't use Debian resources for the effort.
Hmmm... as far as
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > We make no restriction that Debian GNU/Linux packages can not be installed
> > on a Sun OS, do we? Why should we have anything to say about packages
> > i
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >> The policy statement on http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19980306a says:
>
> >> We allow all businesses to make reasonable use of the "Debian"
> >> trademark. For example, if you m
(Arrgh, I simply pressed "Reply" again... :o( Sorry, Branden!)
Hi Branden!
I think I should rephrase where I see a problem:
IMHO, the DFSG serves for two purposes:
1. It determines what can be included into Debian. (If I
understand it right, [non-free] is not a part of Debian, but
someth
On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >
> > > Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > RMS approached Debian nearly insisting that the distro be called Debian
> > > > GNU/Linux becau
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We also don't use our resources to compile and distribute binary
> packages for Solaris, or put our name behind an effort to do so. Why
> should we do anything different for Windows?
When has we rejected to put our name behind an effort to distribut
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:05:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Um, no. You just don't understand the FSF's position. The FSF's
> position is that there is a specific operating system, called "GNU".
> There is this related thing, called "GNU/Linux", which is a variant of
> the GNU system
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> We make no restriction that Debian GNU/Linux packages can not be installed
> on a Sun OS, do we? Why should we have anything to say about packages
> installable on M$?
We also don't use our resources
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> While I agree with what you say, as it has already been mentioned GNU is
> not a trademark.
Granted. I assumed that a name as prominent as 'GNU' would have been
trademarked, but it seems I was mistaken.
> We make no restriction that
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 01:54:42PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> I'm actually of the opinion that Debian shouldn't allow any invariant
> text except licenses and copyright notices.
I wouldn't object to amending my proposal along these lines. In this
case I would eliminate clause 3) entirely and a
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > RMS approached Debian nearly insisting that the distro be called Debian
> > > GNU/Linux because of the large component of GNU sofware in the distro. Why
On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > RMS approached Debian nearly insisting that the distro be called Debian
> > GNU/Linux because of the large component of GNU sofware in the distro. Why
> > would he have any different desire for a set of GN
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But it's becoming clear to me that there are only two people who think
> > we even need to worry about this at all.
>
> Who's the other one?
You can count me as well. It's a bit amazing to me that people who
are subscribed to debian-legal don't lik
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RMS approached Debian nearly insisting that the distro be called Debian
> GNU/Linux because of the large component of GNU sofware in the distro. Why
> would he have any different desire for a set of GNU packages delivered to
> a non-Linux platform?
Becau
On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think that it is worth pointing out that "GNU" is not a registered
> > trademark of the Free Software Foundation. The only barrier to using it
> > would be politeness and deference on our part to the F
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:38:33PM -0500, Shaya Potter wrote:
> I don't doubt you, as in a perfect world I would agree. But perhaps I'm
> cynicall, as the FSF always wants Linux and GNU mentioned together, but
> to me Linux is not necc a "free system" i.e. RedHat distributes software
> that the FS
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:26:24AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Perhaps. The GPL rule is that the modified file must contain the
> > modifier's name and the date *of the modification*--diff doesn't know
> > that, because it can only look at
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Cc:ing to debian-legal for additional reality-checking on my comments
> below. If the thread descends into legal minutiae from here, it should
> of course be dropped from debian-devel altogether.
>
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:08:41AM -0500, Dale Schee
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:29:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The FSF wants things to be called GNU/Linux, because its a GNU system
> > with a linux kernel. The same logic would extend to GNU/w32 in that its
> > a gnu system (or as much a g
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:26:24AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Perhaps. The GPL rule is that the modified file must contain the
> modifier's name and the date *of the modification*--diff doesn't know
> that, because it can only look at file timestamps.
Well, diff uses the mtime, doesn't
On Mon, 2001-12-03 at 15:29, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The FSF wants things to be called GNU/Linux, because its a GNU system
> > with a linux kernel. The same logic would extend to GNU/w32 in that its
> > a gnu system (or as much a gnu system as
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The FSF wants things to be called GNU/Linux, because its a GNU system
> with a linux kernel. The same logic would extend to GNU/w32 in that its
> a gnu system (or as much a gnu system as anything else) with a w32
> kernel/ui.
No, because the hallmark, t
On Mon, 2001-12-03 at 13:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think that it is worth pointing out that "GNU" is not a registered
> > trademark of the Free Software Foundation. The only barrier to using it
> > would be politeness and deference on our
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that it is worth pointing out that "GNU" is not a registered
> trademark of the Free Software Foundation. The only barrier to using it
> would be politeness and deference on our part to the FSF.
Right. So let's be appropriately polite and defe
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:50:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > (The issue of marking modifications is one that applies to the GPL as
> > well, and is frequently not followed by most people, alas, at least
> > not within the terms of the lic
On Mon, 2001-12-03 at 11:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I believe I've shown that the existence of the LGPL, and its continued
> use on a (limited) number of GNU projects, does in no way guarantee that
> RMS or the FSF would sanction the use of the GNU trademark to describe a
> product consisting of a
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:56:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm not really sure why you felt the need to quote that
Because people keep asking me the same questions over and over with
different window dressing, masquerading them as distinct objections.
> although I know you have a narcissiti
Cc:ing to debian-legal for additional reality-checking on my comments
below. If the thread descends into legal minutiae from here, it should
of course be dropped from debian-devel altogether.
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:08:41AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > If a package with 20kB of invariant text isn't clearly okay by your
> > guidelines, and a package with 40kB of invariant text clearly
> > not-okay, what's the point of having the 32kB figure at all?
> "A well-chosen arbitrary lim
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:41:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Within what time period? I have made such an assertion with you, RMS,
^ not
> Anthony Towns, Henning Makholm, Sunnavind Fenderson, Scott Dier, or
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller.
Sigh. Bedtime. :)
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:30:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I believe Debian should have a standard a priori the GNU Emacs Manual
> > (for example), and not reason backwards on the assumption that
> > everything that is in main must be
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:43:34PM -0800, Tran Nam Binh wrote:
> HELP, PLEASE HELP!!!
> Hackers have put my user id into
> multiple redistributing lists of your technical forum.
> I can't unsubcribe with automated system because
> my user id is not in the main list.
> Please help. I received tons
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:50:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> (The issue of marking modifications is one that applies to the GPL as
> well, and is frequently not followed by most people, alas, at least
> not within the terms of the license strictly.)
Perhaps dpkg should be modified to au
HELP, PLEASE HELP!!!
Hackers have put my user id into
multiple redistributing lists of your technical forum.
I can't unsubcribe with automated system because
my user id is not in the main list.
Please help. I received tons of unwanted mails.
Please forward this request to the list owner.
Thanks
-
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:48:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'd point out that now you have at least three or four times played
> the "I won't respond to that" card. The rule is that once you play it
> six times, you don't get to pretend to be debating anymore.
I don't recognize any s
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe Debian should have a standard a priori the GNU Emacs Manual
> (for example), and not reason backwards on the assumption that
> everything that is in main must belong there. People find DFSG
> violations in main regularly. The intent of my
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:46:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I intend to. I'm sorry to offend you by asking people more familiar
> > with the GNU Emacs Manual to assist.
>
> What bugs me is that you've now issued *TWO* proposals witho
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:37:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> By "existing licenses" I meant the actual licenses in actual use,
> including the GNU manuals, many of which have invariant sections.
Well, three anyway. The GCC manual, the Emacs manual, and the Emacs
Lisp Reference manual.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, as far as I know, on the GNU FDL has any explicit provisions
> for rendering such notices non-modifiable. The GNU GPL requires people
> performing modifications to identify modified versions, but as far as I
> can recall there is no provisi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neither does any standard mandate a reply from me. I already asked him
> in the message body once to cut it out, and he did not.
I'd point out that now you have at least three or four times played
the "I won't respond to that" card. The rule is tha
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I intend to. I'm sorry to offend you by asking people more familiar
> with the GNU Emacs Manual to assist.
What bugs me is that you've now issued *TWO* proposals without
ascertaining their effect first. How many more times are you going to
make pro
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:40:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL and OPL are new licenses relative to the BSD, Artistic, and
> > > GNU GPL. It is perfectly consistent to expect these new licenses to be
> > > used more widely in
51 matches
Mail list logo
