On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 06:26:01PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Actually, I believe we specifically want to authorize "diminishing the
> distinctiveness" or "harming the reputation". Trademark dilution and
> trademark libel suits are not appropriate for free software, if they are
> ever approp
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > Yes, these are vague criteria but that is to a certain extent
> > inherent in trademark law. You don't know what people will do
> > and how that can affect your trademark.
>
> Wait, the Debian Project should cl
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Anyway, how do you propose to keep the current role distinction
> > between the two logos?
>
> TINLA but I don't think that is necessary. Since the license
> is "do whatever you want as long as it doesn'
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathanael
Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
MJ Ray wrote:
There may be a few licences that are buggy about this and to which we
want to grant a limited-time exception, but that is not unusual. Use
a GR for only that, not a permanent foundation document edit.
C
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Arnoud Engelfriet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:09:11 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> "The sign X, registered as a trademark under number $NUM in
> $REGION,..."
I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* mark
MJ Ray wrote:
>There may be a few licences that are buggy about this and to which we
>want to grant a limited-time exception, but that is not unusual. Use
>a GR for only that, not a permanent foundation document edit.
>> Care to craft another solution? [...]
>No, I've no interest
You just did cr
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:09:11 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > "The sign X, registered as a trademark under number $NUM in
> > $REGION,..."
>
> I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks.
> Possibly, they are just unregistered trademarks...
> Does anybody
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:51:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > > Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but
> > > I've usually disagreed with them.
> >
> > I'm afraid you then th
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:09:11 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:41:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > > Why would you do that?
> >
> > Because there can be more than one logo with different meanings.
> > As you know, the Debian Project has current
alles frei und kostenlos , nur für
erwachsene. amateure, profi , bilder und videos:
http://www.porn-reactor.de.vu
MJ Ray wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I also don't see a need to indicate a field for the mark when you
> > license people to do anything with the mark. So maybe you should
> > just omit the entire Z thing.
>
> How about to avoid accidentally licensing a second mark in a
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also don't see a need to indicate a field for the mark when you
> license people to do anything with the mark. So maybe you should
> just omit the entire Z thing.
How about to avoid accidentally licensing a second mark in a different
field which loo
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [GPL/LGPL addressed in an earlier thread.]
> The Academic Free License does not have
> permission to modify. The LaTeX Project Public License does not have
> permission to modify.
I think AFL is not a DFSG-free licence because of its excessive
Mutua
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but I've
> > usually disagreed with them.
>
> I'm afraid you then think that you have to purge every GPLv2 preamble
> from Debian main.
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:41:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > Why would you do that?
>
> Because there can be more than one logo with different meanings.
> As you know, the Debian Project has currently two logos[1]:
I understand that. But I think it is sufficient if you
15 matches
Mail list logo
