Re: AGPLv3 and BSD-4-clause compatibility in the same source

On 27/10/13 17:19, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Since BSD-4-clause is not compatible with GPL do I understand it > correctly that they basically made Berkeley DB 6.0.20 indistributable by > us? Or am I missing something about mixing BSD-4-clause and AGPLv3? It depends on who the acknowledged party is. If

Re: Are all files produced by GPL Ghostscript copyrighted by 'Artifex Software, Inc.'?

On 22/12/12 12:33, Vaibhav Niku wrote: > One solution to the problem is to get the source code, delete the > lines which insert the copyright notice (“modify the code”), compile > the code, and use this. This is legal as the code is released under > GPL and GPL allows modifications. (You could rele

Re: Ethics/morals issue

On 25/11/12 22:08, Gary Wilson wrote: Thank you very much. Your assistance is greatly appreciated If your son is interested in how it can be that there exists a complete operating system and thousands of pieces of software which are freely available for him to use without restriction and wit

Re: Mozilla Public License 2.0 released

On 13/01/12 21:31, Francesco Poli wrote: > Nonetheless, all the existing GPL-incompatibilities due to the MPL > v1.1, including the *unintentional* ones, won't be solved, except for > the cases where the copyright holders may be tracked down, and convinced > to explicitly enable the compatibility:

Re: Mozilla Public License 2.0 released

On 05/01/12 23:16, Francesco Poli wrote: > Clause 1.5(b) fails to solve existing compatibility headaches. > > It disables the default (L)GPL compatibility (caused by clause 3.3) for > those works that were previously incompatible because they were only > licensed under the MPL v1.1 (or earlier). T

Re: Educational Community License 1.0

On 29/08/11 15:18, Ben Finney wrote: >> then effectively Debian policy is that no trademarks may appear >> anywhere in Debian. The purpose of trademarks in law is as a >> determinant of origin. > > What in DFSG §8 (or in my explanation of it) makes this infeasible, in > your view? If you understa

Re: Educational Community License 1.0

On 26/08/11 23:09, Ben Finney wrote: > Bear in mind that the Debian Free Software Guidelines don't allow a work > into Debian if the license is special to Debian. See DFSG §8: > > 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian >The rights attached to the program must not depend on the progr

MPL 2 RC1 released

Hi, all- I'm happy to announce the release of MPL 2 Release Candidate 1 - the text that we hope will become MPL 2.0 and serve the open source community well for the next decade (or three). The plain text of the license is here: http://mpl.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/MPL-RC1.txt (other

Re: Updating the MPL

On 15/03/10 10:52, Gervase Markham wrote: I will enquire as to what happened, and hopefully get the draft-for-comment corrected. https://mpl.co-ment.com/text/NMccndsidpP/view/?comment_id_key=JeG3XyUGGI7 Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Re: Updating the MPL

On 13/03/10 21:52, Francesco Poli wrote: However, the license text to be commented is *not* identical to the official text of the MPL version 1.1 [2]. [1] http://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/ [2] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt (as far as I know) The differences (as shown by wdif

Re: Updating the MPL

On 13/03/10 08:18, Paul Wise wrote: Is there the perception that the MPL is still nessecary? I'm wondering what features of the current/future MPL are desired and are not satisfied by the LGPL / GPL dual licensing combination or could be The scope of the copyleft in the MPL (file-level) is diff

Updating the MPL

Hi, debian-legal :-) Earlier today Mozilla announced that we're launching a community process to update, simplify, and modernize the MPL. You can find more information about the process at http://mpl.mozilla.org/ We're planning to address issues relevant to this group such as making the licence m

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Miriam Ruiz wrote: > Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test? The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source distribution passes the test, but only that it's possible to pass the test. The life of a dissident is a complicated and difficult one

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

MJ Ray wrote: >> It doesn't require you to give them a copy. It requires you to offer it. >> In other words, the app you let them use might have a "Save Source" >> link, but they are responsible for bringing the USB stick. > > If that were the case, it would be fine if the AGPLv3 app on my > webse

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

MJ Ray wrote: > 1. Along similar lines, one question I keep returning to is > > "Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my > expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the > DFSG?" It doesn't require you to give them a copy. It requires you to o

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Miriam Ruiz wrote: > The point, for me at least, is just to be aware of the consequences > that having a program with that license will have both for Debian and > its users, and whether we should put that stuff in main or not. There are two points: 1) Is this software DFSG-free? 2) Does putting i

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Bernhard R. Link wrote: > It's not the users of the software, it's the users of services run by > the software. But in today's world, that's no longer a meaningful distinction. It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I interacted with the services provided by that software u

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Christofer C. Bell wrote: > As the AGPLv3 will force you, from the United States, to offer > cryptographic software for export in the event that you modify server > software using it and (make that software available for interaction > over a network), it is forcing you to violate US law. Making cr

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Francesco Poli wrote: > In the case of the AfferoGPLv3, I am *not* already distributing > software. But you are distributing some sort of data - otherwise the person using the software would not be interacting with it. Interaction requires exchange of data. > I modified the application and simp

Re: LGPL v3 compatibilty

Anthony W. Youngman wrote: If your GPLv2 program links to an LGPLv3 library, then you don't need to give a monkeys. The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your program is GPL (any version), then it is compati

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

Kern Sibbald wrote: 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Ben Finney wrote: No. This is no more true than to say that, because the GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses accompany software in Debian, that those licenses apply to all of that software. The only thing you've clearly done is distribute a license text and a CD. The license text doesn't apply as th

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Anthony W. Youngman wrote: And as I see it, if I say "My program is licenced under GPLv3 with the following exceptions ...", if the user ignores the exception, they have broken the terms I set for them to use the program, and the GPL doesn't apply, so they can't take advantage of the clause all

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Steve Langasek wrote: Whatever happened to the First Amendment? Do you also count on First Amendment protection against charges of libel, slander, and false advertising? That's a false analogy. All of the things in your list are done with intent to mislead. In the examples we are considering

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Adam Borowski wrote: Ok, let's scrap the high-tech detector with enough resolution to tell you're moving your hand and take a more realistic one which can just tell that you're sitting at the computer -vs- being somewhere else in the room -vs- the room being empty. The voice can tell me a lot wh

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Adam Borowski wrote: The only difference is that it's not the author of the software who is being advertised, but GPL and FSF position. This seems an unfairly perjorative way of saying "the list of rights the user acquires with the software". This clause is not about making the GNU Manifesto

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Adam Borowski wrote: Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then? I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical. And the advertising clause is a lot, lot worse than for 4-clause BSD one --

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Steve Langasek wrote: Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to people on debian-legal as a whole. Given that unlicensed legal advice is a criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than his local laws. If this were true, the logical con

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Iain Nicol wrote: If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep, but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not. My in

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Steve Langasek wrote: If I go to the effort of writing This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the prohibition in sect

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Steve Langasek wrote: WTF, seriously? Reading this makes me want to go write some new code, license it under the GPLv3 with some random and arbitrary prohibition, and watch someone at the FSF try to argue that the additional restriction has no legal force. Not non-free, just incredibly goofy; I

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Sean Kellogg wrote: Francesco... as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a sufficient disclaimer. Nor is saying "this is not legal advice." There are laws, criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction

Re: First draft of AGPL v3

Francesco Poli wrote: The restriction in the GPL is about the act of conveying copies of the work. The restriction in the AGPL is about *using* the modified work: there's a cost associated with *use*... But surely the entire point in question is whether presenting the UI to someone across the

Re: First draft of AGPL v3

Francesco Poli wrote: Bad: no clear definition of remote users The term "user" is not clearly defined. Is your point that it is impossible to clearly define, or do you have alternative language? Do you know how the corresponding clause in the current Affero license has historically

Re: EPSG data reviewing in progress

I don't know if this conversation is supposed to happen elsewhere, or perhaps with a smaller CC list, but: Francesco Poli wrote: EPSG dataset Terms of use, revised 22/03/2007 (proposed - not adopted!) The EPSG geodetic parameter dataset is owned jointly and severally by the members of the Sur

Re: GPL v3 Draft 3- text and comments

Francesco Poli wrote: Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary. I was using proprietary in what I thought was its fairly common meaning, i.e. clos

Re: GPL v3 Draft 3- text and comments

Francesco Poli wrote: Well, *when* I want a copyleft, I want one that *actually works*... Exemptions for specific incompatible licenses should be left out of the license text (so that who wants them can add them as additional permissions). *When* I choose the GNU GPL, I want to prevent my code f

Re: Copyleft variation of MIT license

Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: I had been using the GPL for some years without fully understanding its implications. Recently, I spent some time thinking about my ethical beliefs regarding free software and discovered that I prefer something like Creative Commons' by-sa (attribution + share-alike) lice

Re: GPL v3 Draft 3- text and comments

Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote: I can't see any judge with a decent grasp of English or the notion of a "legal notice" or "author attribution" permitting the attachment of the GNU Manifesto to a work under this clause

Re: GPL v3 Draft 3- text and comments

Francesco Poli wrote: Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to previous drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in GPLv2... :-( It's an inconvenience and border-line with respect to freeness. Actually this clause restricts how I can modify what an interactive

Re: Python Software Foundation trademark policy

MJ Ray wrote: Passing off is a little different, so I don't want to confuse that with trademarks. That's not something I know much about; a reference on the difference would be appreciated if you have one. How is "Python" being used by the distributor to label the shipped version of CPytho

Re: Python Software Foundation trademark policy

MJ Ray wrote: If I purchase Debian CDs and type "python", or I do "man python" and read all about the interpreter which I can invoke by typing "python" which interprets the Python programming language, or I install "python-doc" and read some more, isn't that use of the trademark? What trade i

Re: Python Software Foundation trademark policy

MJ Ray wrote: Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] This is a complete, standalone, unqualified sentence, and therefore applies to all commercial distribution, including people selling Debian CDs. Well, it applies to all commercial distribution which uses the Python tra

Re: Python Software Foundation trademark policy

MJ Ray wrote: > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As I understand it, Debian uses the name Python to refer to its Python >> implementation and the name `python' for the executable. Does this mean >> that all commercial distributors of Debian need to

Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?

Francesco Poli wrote: > The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each > distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. > At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve > an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow

Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?

Terry Hancock wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: But the names aren't required to be trademarked. That sentence is nonsense in legal terms: there is no such thing as "trademarking a name". A name becomes a trademark when you use it as one. Putting it in a list of reserved font name

Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?

Francesco Poli wrote: I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the Font Software. Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my concerns go away? There is no such clause.

Python Software Foundation trademark policy

The Python Software Foundation trademark policy[0] says the following: "# Use of the word "Python" when redistributing the Python programming language as part of a freely distributed application -- Allowed. If the standard version of the Python programming language is modified, this should be

Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?

Francesco Poli wrote: Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction. It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue, let'

Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages

Simon Josefsson wrote: http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a DFSG-free licence (presumably in parallel to the IETF one) - perhaps some sample boilerpl

Re: OSSAL/CC license of xMule parts

Daniel Leidert wrote: I'm not sure of any of these licenses is DFSG-free. AFAIK the CC licenses are considered non-free and I'm concerned about the OSSAL too (that forbids linking against GPLed libraries). And the exceptions don't seem to allow Debian to link against GPLed libraries. Can you cla

Re: GNU GPL future

MJ Ray wrote: > Well, that's just great for the users who can see the UI without it > spewing errors. Was there really no way to offer the same features to > everyone in an easily-accessible way? I don't know; you'd have to ask the designers. Although you are now using the word "accessible" when

Re: GNU GPL future

MJ Ray wrote: > It's the comment system which is incapable, not the people. > IMO there was no good reason to design some people out of it. If it's possible to provide the same level of function with an interface that works in more browsers, great - and I believe they did do that as time went on,

Re: Mozilla relicensing complete

Francesco Poli wrote: > I think that this is good news anyway. > Thanks to Gervase Markham for dealing with this (big) issue! You are welcome :-) Perhaps now I can get back to hacking :-) Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe".

Re: Affero General Public License

Glenn Maynard wrote: > But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all > of satisfying this for the "voicemail", "toll booth", etc. cases. > (Though the thought of someone corking up a toll booth lane on a busy > interstate to plug in a USB pen drive and download its source is

Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)

Marco d'Itri wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs >> or misfeatures in the font? > Not if they choose a different name. > For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve > correct rendering of docueme

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

Nathanael Nerode wrote: > So here it is: > "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to > have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and > receive copies of the work." I like this, together with Arnoud's suggestions. But Walter is right; t

Re: Question on GPL compliance

Michael Poole wrote: > The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer > case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it? I agree with Daniel that it would be sensible to permit this, and I've actually made this suggestion already on their rather cool commenting webtool. Here's th

Re: Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)

Lewis Jardine wrote: Ludovic Rousseau wrote: It seams the only human possible solution is to ask RSA to change their licence. I guess the Mozilla foundation could help if they care about licencing issues. Any idea of how we should contact Mozilla and RSA? I am really _not_ a diplomatic guy :-)

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

Michael K. Edwards wrote: Would it be out of place to ask what code, exactly, is involved? Not at all, no. As the licensing state of the tree is determined by a script, and because I haven't run it in the past few weeks, I can't tell you exactly offhand. I will attempt to take up the well-wo

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

Steve Langasek wrote: I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually, regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree currently claim. I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not true. In my copious spare time, I'm attempting to complete the Mozilla

Re: openssl vs. GPL question

Michael K. Edwards wrote: Do you know whether the NSS implementation is being certified at source code level (a very unusual arrangement) using the sort of maneuvers mentioned in the Linux Journal article on DMLSS? I'm not able to say - it's not my area. If you are interested, news://news.mozi

Re: openssl vs. GPL question

Michael K. Edwards wrote: Pity the MySQL folks; Progress Software were the ones who encouraged them to switch to the GPL in the first place, and when that relationship went bad, they fell right in with the FSF. Switching to YaSSL is going to cost them when it comes to DoD use of MySQL, since som

Re: Bittorrent licensing, take 2 [MPL and Jabber inside]

MJ Ray wrote: I had hoped that a Moz Found rep would tell us we've missed some obvious reason this doesn't hurt debian, but not yet. With regard to the "six months" requirement, does it help to point out that CVS and other source control systems are Electronic Distribution Mechanisms? Therefore,

Re: Bittorrent licensing, take 2 [MPL and Jabber inside]

Mike Hommey wrote: I don't know for jabber, but mozilla is tri-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL... We don't need to fulfil the MPL. Actually, it's not quite yet. That's what the licensing policy is for new files, and it's what we are working towards for older files, but there are a few files which aren't th

Re: GPL for documentation ?

Henning Makholm wrote: The word "linking" (or any of its forms) appears exactly once in the GPL, and that is in a non-legal, non-technical aside comment: | If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more | useful to permit linking proprietary applications | with the library. If t

Re: Linux and GPLv2

Kuno Woudt wrote: * d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source

Re: GPL for documentation ?

Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Gervase Markham wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: What about it? If the combination in question of the GPLed work and your work is a derived work, then the GPL covers the work as a whole. So is a WP a derived work of a dictionary? IMO, it's much harder to

Re: GPL for documentation ?

Don Armstrong wrote: What about it? If the combination in question of the GPLed work and your work is a derived work, then the GPL covers the work as a whole. So is a WP a derived work of a dictionary? IMO, it's much harder to make this sort of judgement when you're mixing code and non-code. How

Re: GPL for documentation ?

Daniel Carrera wrote: I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the GPL for documentation: 1) The GPL language talks about software. How does that apply to something that is not software? With difficulty, IMO. Although, as someone points out, the GPL only uses the word

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

David Moreno Garza wrote: I think Joey's mail is quite good since it is just stating facts. Truth cannot be made up, specially on free software (and non-free also) legal issues. It took me a long time to learn this one, but it's true - it's not just what you say, it's the way that you say it. I ha

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

Martin Schulze wrote: I've sent this letter to the PHP group: Dear authors, we are a group of developers that build up an entire GNU/Linux system based on the Linux kernel, GNU utilities and a lot of other software. It is named Debian GNU/Linux

Re: [Legal] Firefox not truly Free?

William Ballard wrote: I don't know what to make of this statement: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm [quote] The main disadvantage of the deal with Google is that native language versions of Firefox are not permitted to change the default search engine to one that is more useful

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

I must admit I'm finding this a bit frustrating. I came to debian-legal, listened to what people (including, I believe, the Thunderbird package maintainer) were saying, and drew up a document[0] which I hoped would meet Debian's requirements, further modifying it based on feedback[1]. This modi

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Eric Dorland wrote: Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian specific. Absolutely reasonable - it would be entirely against DFSG #8. Umm, I don't understand. You'd like to make a deal but you recognize that we can't under DFSG #8? That seems very paradoxical to me. What I mea

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

MJ Ray wrote: Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] But I don't think completing this process needs to be a requirement for working out the remaining issues. I agree with this. I do think it's a requirement for going forwards once any compromise is worked out. Sure.

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Eric Dorland wrote: Before I get to them, one of the interesting things pointed out in one of the threads is that the Trademark License might be more onerous then what trademark law (at least in the US) allows. Now, they're your trademarks, and I have every intention of respecting your wishes when

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

MJ Ray wrote: Should I set this in browserconfig.properties or what? about:config in your built and running copy, or one of the default preferences files (not sure which) in the source. This probably isn't the correct fix, but it's one that'll work. I mentioned it merely for information; I'm no

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Michael K. Edwards wrote lots of convincing arguments and then said: In this factual setting, I think it's wisest for everyone to fall back to trademark statute if the agreement falls apart. Fair enough. I'm convinced :-) Replace "the name of the package will have to be changed in all as-yet-unre

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Alexander Sack wrote: Look into the source tarballs. At least the source of thunderbird ships with official icons included [1] (downloaded a minute ago). Oh dear :-( I'll get something done about that, then. They definitely shouldn't be _built_, though. yes, for main this is definitly true. For

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

MJ Ray wrote: At the moment, it has bugs. For example, it took a damn sight longer than 10 minutes (excluding new graphics) and still the blasted about: screen calls itself Firefox/1.0, It gets that from the UserAgent string, I believe. Set the pref general.useragent.override to override it, or g

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Alexander Sack wrote: Mike Hommey wrote: Removing trademarks is not the reason why you remove the icons in the orig.tar.gz. The reason is that the icons are not free. Is there really a big difference? Is there a separate copyright license for the icons other than the trademark document that this w

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Walter Landry wrote: > There is a difference between "simple as possible" and "undue burden". > It may turn out that as simple as possible is still hard. If it were > phrased something like > > To change the name, the Mozilla foundation will find it sufficient > to change only the single insta

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Michael K. Edwards wrote: Change "the name of the package will have to be changed" to "the Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its trademarks" and I think it's completely unobjectionable. Without commenting on whether this change would be OK or not, can you see any ci

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Michael K. Edwards wrote: Change "the name of the package will have to be changed" to "the Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its trademarks" and I think it's completely unobjectionable. Without commenting on whether this change would be OK or not, can you see any circum

Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few weeks, for which I thank all involved. Comments are in square brackets. This assumes that DFSG #8 means that Debian can be given rights over and abov

Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few weeks, for which I thank all involved. Comments are in square brackets. This assumes that DFSG #8 means that Debian can be given rights over and above

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

MJ Ray wrote: Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group. Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...] Y

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

MJ Ray wrote: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks. I can understand why I can't call it

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

MJ Ray wrote: Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think it's as simple as that. After all, Debian has a trademark policy, and restricts use of its trademarks, as does the Apache Group. Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...] Y

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

MJ Ray wrote: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks. I can understand why I can't call it mozil

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

Francesco Poli wrote: I'm no expert in fund-raising strategies: could you please explain what you mean? How can MoFo raise funds by preventing other people from calling "Mozilla Firefox" a distributed modified version of its XUL-based web browser? One example is that we have a deal with Google

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

Alexander Sack wrote: In contrast, the package you want us to distribute is not distributed by upstream. You distribute something that is restricted by active trademark enforcement, which IMHO is non-free, because a trademark policy is just another way to restrict freedom. I don't think it's

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

Don Armstrong wrote: I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable release and dealing with all of the problems that that would cause for the us

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

MJ Ray wrote: Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked logos Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them, which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me. The

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

MJ Ray wrote: MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how? Spotted another thread (mail is slow here this week) and replaced the branding dir. Rebuild underway. Still need to repla

Re: Hypothetical situation to chew on

Nathanael Nerode wrote: If not, what procedure would be needed to make the software DFSG-free? I'm going to guess clean-room rewrite of all of the documentation, and of any code that could be affected? Not *quite*. But close. (1) Every piece of code must be audited to determine the copyrigh

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?

Brian Masinick wrote: "mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order to not infringe their trademarks." I think plenty of dialog with Mozilla is a good idea. If they don't like the way we package Thunderbird or any of the other packages, I should point out aga

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

Michael K. Edwards wrote: So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function. It can, especially in the case of a web browser; consider web s

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

Francesco Poli wrote: Exactly. DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only, and not to downstream recipients as well. So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain name an "important f

  1   2   >