Re: Trademark scope (just for the record)

2007-09-08 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 09:32:06AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:50:21PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > > > Pepsico doesn't ask the Coca-Cola Company's permission to publish claims > > > that its sugar-water is better tasting than i

Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses

2007-09-08 Thread Soeren Sonnenburg
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 15:18 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:13:56 -0700 Rick Moen wrote: > > > Quoting Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > [Comparison of DFSG and OSD:] > > > > > OSI based its OSD on the DFSG > > > > More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote > [...]

Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses

2007-09-08 Thread Soeren Sonnenburg
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 22:37 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:56:23 +0200 Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > [...] > > Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and > > as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause > > incompatibilities I am now jus

Re: Trademark scope (just for the record)

2007-09-08 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Rick Moen wrote: > > > Pepsico doesn't ask the Coca-Cola Company's permission to publish > > > claims that its sugar-water is better tasting than is Coca-Cola. > > > That ought to be a big, fat clue, but far too many people have been > > > successfully conned and don't think abo

Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses

2007-09-08 Thread Jens Peter Secher
On 03/09/2007, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 13:46 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the > > DFSG by disguising that as "editorial changes". > > Only you and Anthony Towns believe th

Re: Debian WWW use OPL - which is declared non-DFSG free?

2007-09-08 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:23:52 +0300 Jari Aalto wrote: [...] > To me, it looks like a contradiction. Should the WWW pages be > relicensed using DFSG compatible licence? This is a known bug: http://bugs.debian.org/238245 Unfortunately, solving it won't be easy and little progress seems to have been

Re: Debian WWW use OPL - which is declared non-DFSG free?

2007-09-08 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007, Jari Aalto wrote: > Should the WWW pages be relicensed using DFSG compatible licence? Yes, this has been discussed, and is most likely going to happen. However, it requires getting all contributors to agree, which will require a heroic effort. Don Armstrong -- A Democracy

Debian WWW use OPL - which is declared non-DFSG free?

2007-09-08 Thread Jari Aalto
See this: Debian WWW Pages License http://www.debian.org/license "This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, Draft v1.0 or later (you can read our local copy, the latest version is usually available

Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b

2007-09-08 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:25:20 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 22:49 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:02:31 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > > [...] > > > I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of > > > section 7. This

Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses

2007-09-08 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:13:56 -0700 Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > [Comparison of DFSG and OSD:] > > > OSI based its OSD on the DFSG > > More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote [...] Yes, that's the whole story in more detail, thanks for expanding my summary