On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:46:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 07:49:32PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:04:25AM -0800, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > But consider for a moment that fact that iceweasel (at
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 07:49:32PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:04:25AM -0800, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > But consider for a moment that fact that iceweasel (at least the one I have
> > installed) includes /usr/bin/firefox... which is a symlink to ice
On 12/7/06, Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this interfere with dual licensing?
Not following this. You can't dual license unless you are the copyright
holder, and then you always can (unless you are party to an exclusive
rights contract). Sounds like this is simply a (somewhat w
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 19:24, Michael Poole wrote:
> In this case, I am willing to assume reasonable behavior because
> upstream is a known quantity and the time window is limited. When
> analyzing an arbitrary license, I assume that any villain might
> contribute code to, or buy rights to
Sean Kellogg writes:
> A tale of woe to be certain, but I don't think it changes the analysis.
> Debian-Legal routinely takes the position of assuming upstream is a "bad guy"
> and is out to screw over not only Debian but every distributor and mirror on
> the globe. Mozilla has a good case he
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:50, Michael Poole wrote:
> To the contrary, preserving a product's name is the default mode of
> permissions for free and open source software. It is quite rare for
> software to impose a renaming requirement as permitted by DFSG#4.
>
> As just one example, Linus T
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:47, Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:30, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > Apparently law instead requires us to assume users are in fact
> > > morons in a hurry. What a sad state of affairs.
> >
> > Yes, th
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Okay, I think we've drifted from our point of origin. The lightbulb
> analogy comes from the case law on a light bulb design patent which
> had expired.
No, it's actually the analogy used in the supreme court decision
previously mentioned about the color
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:58, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sean Kellogg writes:
>> > What meaning does Firefox have beyond identifying it as "a browser made
>> > by the Mozilla Foundation"? (oh, and the actual name of a kind of fox
>> > that was mentioned earlier). I don'
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:30, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Apparently law instead requires us to assume users are in fact
> > morons in a hurry. What a sad state of affairs.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what the law requires.
IANAL. I will merely draw to
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:58, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sean Kellogg writes:
> > What meaning does Firefox have beyond identifying it as "a browser made
> > by the Mozilla Foundation"? (oh, and the actual name of a kind of fox
> > that was mentioned earlier). I don't want to give away the farm
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 16:19, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:05, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Your argument is akin to allowing someone to trademark a specific
> > > shape of a light bulb which coveys a functional advantage
"Sean Kellogg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] My trademarks prof, who did trademark work for wine companies, really
disliked that line of reasoning, since wine consumers are usually of higher
sophistication and could distinguish beer from wine. However, the P
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 23:40, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:30, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Apparently law instead requires us to assume users are in fact morons
> > in a hurry. What a sad state of affairs.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what the law requires. The consumer i
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 + MJ Ray wrote:
> This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the
> original software is acceptable.
> I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved
> Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-fre
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:05, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Your argument is akin to allowing someone to trademark a specific
> > shape of a light bulb which coveys a functional advantage due to
> > the interaction of the lightbulb and lamp, and then req
Sean Kellogg writes:
> What meaning does Firefox have beyond identifying it as "a browser made by
> the
> Mozilla Foundation"? (oh, and the actual name of a kind of fox that was
> mentioned earlier). I don't want to give away the farm here, but if you can
> show another meaning then you've re
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:05, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Trademark law does not care about Debian's technical limitations.
>
> It does only insofar as we are using the trademark in the context of a
> technical construct.
>
> > The functionality doctri
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:58, Michael Poole wrote:
> I am no more kidding about trademark holdings than I would about
> copyright or patent holdings -- cases which probably make it to trial
> or appeal about as rarely as trademark cases.
Ah, but this is not true. Copyright and patents both
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Trademark law does not care about Debian's technical limitations.
It does only insofar as we are using the trademark in the context of a
technical construct.
> The functionality doctrine is about real world functional
> limitations imposed on tradedress.
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:08, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Alleged possibilities of confusion abounds. There is quite a
>> difference between that and actual likelihood of confusion,
>> particularly no one has cited any holdings that appear to be on point.
>
> Holding? I
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:30, Michael Poole wrote:
> Would you lawyers (in practice or in training) please set aside that
> lamentable habit, so frequently seen in US court filings, of trying to
> provoke inadvertent admissions by baldly making factually wrong
> statements?
(Interesting tid
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:08, Michael Poole wrote:
> Alleged possibilities of confusion abounds. There is quite a
> difference between that and actual likelihood of confusion,
> particularly no one has cited any holdings that appear to be on point.
Holding? In a trademarks case? You're k
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> Trademark law's purpose is not to encourage or reward the commercial
>> use of new marks, but to stem certain kinds of pernicious consumer
>> confusion. As it is not simply a question of owning and controlling
>> rights (for a limited period), i
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 + MJ Ray wrote:
> Does the new draft available at
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL_review&_sc=1#db4033e4-5239a507
> let software follow the DFSG?
[...]
> the licence itself says:
[...]
> -
Michael Poole wrote:
> Trademark law's purpose is not to encourage or reward the commercial
> use of new marks, but to stem certain kinds of pernicious consumer
> confusion. As it is not simply a question of owning and controlling
> rights (for a limited period), it is incorrect to continually tre
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 13:39, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Trademark law is not strictly analogous to patent or copyright law.
>>
>> Trademark law's purpose is not to encourage or reward the commercial
>> use of new marks, but to stem certain kinds of pernicious consumer
>
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 13:39, Michael Poole wrote:
> Trademark law is not strictly analogous to patent or copyright law.
>
> Trademark law's purpose is not to encourage or reward the commercial
> use of new marks, but to stem certain kinds of pernicious consumer
> confusion.
Yes, consumer
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 12:48, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>> > What do I get if I run it?
>>
>> There's nothing in the package, so you don't get anything.
>>
>> > If it's just a "Sorry, Firefox(TM) not available for legel reas
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 12:48, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > What do I get if I run it?
>
> There's nothing in the package, so you don't get anything.
>
> > If it's just a "Sorry, Firefox(TM) not available for legel reasons,
> > we recommend Icewease
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> What do I get if I run it?
There's nothing in the package, so you don't get anything.
> If it's just a "Sorry, Firefox(TM) not available for legel reasons,
> we recommend Iceweasel instead", then that's fine.
What is being done is the technical eq
On 12/6/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
---
SIL OPEN FONT LICE
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:37:42AM -0800, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 07:42, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Arnoud Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061206 16:26]:
> > > What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> > > would carry the
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El mi?rcoles, 6 de diciembre de 2006 a las 16:26:27 +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet
> escrib?a:
> > What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> > would carry the name firefox. There's no such thing as a firefox. There
>
> It is not a package for Iceweas
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 07:42, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Arnoud Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061206 16:26]:
> > What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> > would carry the name firefox.
>
> It doesn't do that. All what we do is saying people who had previously
>
El miércoles, 6 de diciembre de 2006 a las 16:26:27 +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet
escribía:
> What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> would carry the name firefox. There's no such thing as a firefox. There
It is not a package for Iceweasel that is called "firefox". It
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:04:25AM -0800, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> But consider for a moment that fact that iceweasel (at least the one I have
> installed) includes /usr/bin/firefox... which is a symlink to iceweasel.
> The file isn't part of the transition package, it's part
Joe Smith wrote:
> "Arnoud Engelfriet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> >would carry the name firefox. There's no such thing as a firefox.
>
> There is such thing as a firefox. In fact there are
"Arnoud Engelfriet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray wrote:
Don't trademarks apply even less to included executable file names than
to
package names? They're not even used to label anything supplied in
trade.
They are names of controls used to operate the ma
On Le Tuesday 05 December 2006, à 23:07:23, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 01:57:48PM -0800, Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I notice that recently you have complied with Mozilla's request to not
> > use their trademarks for your browser packages. However, you can't
> > also
* Arnoud Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061206 16:26]:
> What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> would carry the name firefox.
It doesn't do that. All what we do is saying people who had previously
installed firefox that we rather recommend them now to use iceweasel.
MJ Ray wrote:
> Don't trademarks apply even less to included executable file names than to
> package names? They're not even used to label anything supplied in trade.
> They are names of controls used to operate the machinery. I could call my
> firm's new car model 'steering wheel' and trademark
Does the new draft available at
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL_review&_sc=1#db4033e4-5239a507
let software follow the DFSG?
There's some discussion at
http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000103.html
and
http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> You are right, that is a more fair analogy. But I think it is yet more
> complicated. I'm going to a car lot, asking for a Ford Focus and being told
> sure, we've got that, but we call it a Peugeot 307 (which, incidentally I had
> never heard of bef
Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I notice that recently you have complied with Mozilla's request to not
> use their trademarks for your browser packages. However, you can't
> also use their trademark to switch users to a competing product.
> ("bait-and-switch") [...]
I do not understand bait-and-sw
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 18:12, Michael Poole wrote:
> Unless the user has specifically changed system configuration files,
> "apt-get install" on a Debian system only installs software from
> Debian. It does not install software from the Mozilla Foundation.
That is a very interesting perspect
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 18:08, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > I cannot produce a car identical to a Ford Focus and then say "well,
> > it's a Ford Focus because the feature set is identical."
>
> This is a totally useless analogy. In this example there is no
47 matches
Mail list logo
