On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 02:27:00PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Under the following conditions, Anki's logo may be included in blogs,
> > newspaper articles, books, videos and other such material about Anki.
>
> These actions would seem to already be licensed by the AGPLv3, without
> these additon
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:46:29AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> > The best analysis of this situation I have read so far is the one in
> > Noodles' blog:
>
> > https://www.earth.li/~noodles/blog/2017/03/github-tos-change.html
>
> IMHO that a
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 05:20:29PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:40:00AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 06:24:25AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > > Every copyright notice means that there is at least a part copyrighted by
> &g
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 06:24:25AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 05:01:07PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:45:27AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > > > even
> > > > when portions are copyright other people/entities.
> >
> > > If there is a hint
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:25:48PM +0200, roucaries bastien wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I whish to inquire about license of a package triple licensied under
> GPL/LGPL/MPL
>
> I have found that libnss3 have some file under BSD4 and could not be
> to my own opinion be compatible with GPL*
>
> Do you agree w
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:16:28PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:26:02 -0600 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 04:16:46AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> [...]
> > > Unfortunately, there's no way that Debian can possibly comply with the
> > > compliance spec
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 05:24:05PM -0600, Michael Cassano wrote:
> I didn't get the exact parameters needed to obtain Debian's logo, but I did
> show that they are not default.
But you didn't show they aren't trivial to unpurposefully reproduce.
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-re
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:50:04PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:36:44AM +0100, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> > > FYI - A computer shop has taken the Debian logo and used it for his
> > > business.
>
> > > http://imgur.com/gFKfs.jpg
>
> > Thank you for making this jpeg, i
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:40:55AM -0600, Michael Cassano wrote:
> Correct, I swirled it too much, that is my point.
>
> What are the odds that the blue logo in question swirled their logo
> pixel-for-pixel the same as Debian's? I believe the odds are low given the
> couple minutes of work I put
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:24:34AM -0600, Michael Cassano wrote:
> The message from 2005 seems to indicate it was produced using Illustrator,
> not Photoshop.
>
> Attached is an image I just created using Illustrator 14.0.0, my goal was to
> recreate the Debian logo. I used the 'rough charcoal' b
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:39:33PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> The first three paragraphs look like a BSD licence to me, paragraph four
> is a personal rant from the authors. Apart from the obvious (remove
> everything following "no x86-only assembly code..."), what else would be
> needed to make
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 03:43:53PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > Where is this proprietary library distributed?
> >
> > In AMD website.
> >
> > If the user downloads it and installs it, BOINC will use it, and will be
> >
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:23:09AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Mike Hommey writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57:12PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Mike Hommey writes:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:31:30PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
&g
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57:12PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Mike Hommey writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:31:30PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Those are (as far as I understand) published by the OpenSearch
> > > protocol, and explicitly sent usi
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:31:30PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Those are (as far as I understand) published by the OpenSearch protocol,
> and explicitly sent using that protocol by the search provider as “an
> image that can be used in association with this search content”
> http://www.opensearch.or
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:52:22PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > More than the trademark fair use problem, there is one of a license one:
> > Are these logo really free ? (keep in mind that for example, the Firefox
> &g
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:08:14PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Eion Robb writes:
>
> > > There's no “fair use” in trademark law AFAIK.
> > http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trademark+law+fair+use&l=1
>
> (Leads to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)>)
>
> Okay, so it seems (according
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:38:39PM +0100, Dave Howe wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
> > come from? References, please!
>
> PDF and PS *are* programming languages, and quite powerful ones.
> However, they are entirely interpreted -
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 10:06:53AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat Jan 03 09:22, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:53:06PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > > On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:53:06PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange
> > interactions with other code (library linkage, etc.), and as I'm not
> > sure how sourced
Hi,
While working on packaging zfs-fuse, I thought about adding a bash
completion script for the zfs and zpool commands. Anyways, such a script
already exists[1], but its license is CDDL, which is not GPL compatible.
Most files in /etc/bash_completion.d on my system don't have a license
boilerpla
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:15:10AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [CC'ing since someone may have the answer]
>
> I have just tested Lenny on a laptop[1] with an Intel Pro Wireless 2200
> chipset. As you probably known the kernel module ipw2200 requires a
> non-free firmware.
>
> I'm w
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 07:40:15PM +0200, Julien Lavergne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is now a patent for Apple of the concept of "Dock". Is there a
> risk for all "dock" packages in Debian, such as avant-window-navigator ?
FWIW, the patent is more about zooming docks like the OSX one than plain
docks
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:09:33PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Friday 29 February 2008 02:21:51 am Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > 2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course,
> > > there is no explanation of how a "licenses
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > To put it another way: whatever one thinks of the Debian logo policy,
> > > it seems harsh on OP to make him comply with a stricter interpretation
> > > of the DFSG than the Debian pr
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:33:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:43:34PM +, John Halton wrote:
> > On 28/11/2007, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Based on a quick look, these files establish a correspondence between
> > > different character set encodi
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:23:51PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> See:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/121734
>
> This does not seem to have been fixed in Debian, judging by the orig.tar.gz
> shown as got from upstream at:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/ice
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:39:10AM +0100, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> >>
> >> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
> > 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
> > CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
>
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
> > > > place. Is it ?
>
> > &
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:49:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-04-
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > But if I rename
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 09:48:05AM -0400, Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 01:33:56PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 05 avril 2007 à 19:33 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > > Basically, it says the binaries are not dis
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 04:57:25PM -0400, Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:03:20AM -0500, Kilz _ wrote:
> > Hi Debian legal
> > I am writing you to ask a question that someone I know doesnt believe. It
> > has to do with the Swiftfox license. Can you please c
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:03:20AM -0500, Kilz _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Debian legal
> I am writing you to ask a question that someone I know doesnt believe. It
> has to do with the Swiftfox license. Can you please confirm or deny that it
> passes the DFSG? Thanks. I say it doesnt, but h
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:13:28PM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for discussion about a possibly controversially licensed package
> in development, firmware-ipw2200.
>
> License: Intel license
>
> http://bughost.org/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2200-fw
Last time I looked at this li
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 04:25:56PM -0500, Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-29-01 at 14:06 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
> > GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
> > formatting was re
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 06:04:21PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> AFAIK, in many jurisdictions, in regards to copyright circumvention it
> is often determined on the basis of 'is there any commercially viable
> legal use?' rather than 'is there any legal use?'. Did anyone
> *
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 f
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
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
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 05:51:03PM -0800, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In fact, as an end user it is well within my right to use the firefox logo
> and
> name with iceweasel. It's debian, who has chosen to place a product into
> direct competition, who has to watch it's Ps and Qs
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:07:23PM +0100, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 fo
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 use their trademark to switch users to a competing product.
> ("bait-an
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 06:47:30PM +0100, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Le vendredi 01 décembre 2006 18:44, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
> removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
>
> Does anybo
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:56:16PM +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only issue here is a trademark one, but as the icon is used to
> > reference firefox itself, I'd have guessed it is allowed. I'm CCing
> > debian-legal, as this has been
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:32:07PM +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Can anyone comment on whether or not it is problematic for us to
> > distribute a tiny icon of Firefox's logo? [...]
>
> IIRC we have no current copyright permission for it, even in th
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 05:05:24PM +, Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 2006-09-22, Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From a practical point of view: I don't think this is intended by the
> > Mozilla people. Probably they will grant you a license, if you ask.
>
> Pleas
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:00:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerod
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> > Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
> > minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion goin
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 09:37:34AM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now
> > completed; all sourc
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:23:05PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent
> >decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this.
> >
> The MPL (section 3.2) requires that source c
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 12:39:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 09:37:34 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > According to G
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now
> completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL:
... which technically doesn't apply to the source code we have in the
deb
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:05:52AM -0800, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > &g
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
> non-free" mails.
It is indeed non-free.
> So, I have some packages in NEW that are MP
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:51:05AM +0100, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:10:37AM +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 03:22:56PM +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:10:37AM +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 03:22:56PM +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Simon Vallet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > 1=B0
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 03:22:56PM +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Vallet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 1=B0 To willingly edit, distribute to the public, or inform the public
> > about, in any form, a device[2] whose obvious purpose is to permit
> > unauthorized distribution of protected
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:39:12PM +, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:35:16PM +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wro
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:35:16PM +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >If courts were to go for the first interpretation, my opinion is that
> >french Debian (and other distributions) mirrors could be endangered.
> This is a problem for French mirror ope
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:24:12AM +0900, JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[ ] Choice 3: pi = 3 [needs legislature of Indiana approval]
> >
> >Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a
> >majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural
> >f
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:39:32PM -0500, Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not saying the patent issue should be ignored. It just strikes me
> > as silly to even start comparing Theora with H.264.
>
> Certain graphic artists would say the same of GIMP vs Photoshop, or compare
> their
Hi,
I don't think I've seen that discussed somewhere (but I could be wrong),
but I noticed terms in the GFDL that makes most distributed Debian CDs
not following the license.
3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have
printed covers) of the Do
Shame on me, just forget this message.
It's all written in
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:21:48PM +0100, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think I've seen that discussed somewhere (
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:05:01PM +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Their line of reasoning is that it such a clause is present in several
> other licenses: the APSL, RPSL, MPL and Jabber licenses. The APSL and
> RPSL are non-free, so that's not a problem. IIRC, the MPL was sai
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:36:33AM +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course. I'm just pointing out that this process is nowhere near done
> and you should not lead people to believe otherwise. I'm sceptical that
> it will be done quickly, because one still has to hack to get firefox
> b
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 03:57:49PM +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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 tha
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:28:30PM +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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 fr
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:53:37AM +0100, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> But again, for me it is still unclear if we need to patch the orig.tar.gz
> in advance. I would think so; we currently remove the icons anyway, so IMHO
> removing all other trademarks would be necessary too, ri
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 08:52:24PM +0100, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> >lightningbug - Mail client derived from Mozilla Thunderbird
> >iceweasel - Web browser derived from Mozilla Firefox
> >gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
>
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 03:35:00PM +0100, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> >Note that this name change requirement gets interesting to name
> >Mozilla...
> >Mozilla Thunderbird can be "Thunderbird for Debian" or "Debian
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 12:49:04PM +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 01:30:58AM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order
> > to
> > not infringe their trademarks.
>
> We knew this was co
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:23:43PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I'm telling you some drivers *do depend* on a certain firmware. You're
> >still repeating the opposite. Now explain me how in ipw2200 case the
> >driver doesn't *depend* on the firmware, since you seem to kn
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 04:43:50PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
> >> devices require firmwares".
> >Then, how do you explain the ipw2200 case where driver version 0.5 and
> >less will only work with a certain firmware and versio
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:44:37AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
> devices require firmwares".
Then, how do you explain the ipw
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:45:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok, I guess somewhere I lost track of exactly what was being argued in this
> thread. I agree, if the user (or some group of users to whom the driver is
> useful) already have the required firmware, either in the device's flash or
>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:41:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Is this the case even if the firmware is in a flash chip attached to the
> device? If the total amount of non-free software on a user's system is
> the same regardless, why are we concerned about how it's packaged?
'kay, this has a
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 07:42:20PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> Drivers do not require firmwares, hardware devices require firmwares.
> >Well, actually, there are cases where the communication between firmware
> >and driver is tight and both need each other, i.e dri
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:34:33AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Drivers do not require firmwares, hardware devices require firmwares.
Well, actually, there are cases where the communication between firmware
and driver is tight and both need each other, i.e driver won't work with
another firmware a
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:46:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> This is clearly not appropriate; it is not "perfectly reasonable" to
> install a driver package without the firmware, any more than it is
> reasonable to install a dynamically-linked binary without its shared
> library dependencies.
[Just a reminder]
While we are here talking about the Mozilla Firefox case, don't forget
Debian distributes Mozilla and Mozilla Thunderbird as well, in the same
conditions.
Mike
On Tuesday February 10 2004 07:32, Don Armstrong wrote:
> First off, debian-legal isn't really a place for distributing advice
> on which license to choose, although we can let you know which ones
> are DFSG Free, and which ones are likely to conflict with other
> libraries.
> (...)
Well, the requ
Hi all,
I'm currently developping (well, quite slowly, I must say), what is supposed
to be an XML framework (cocoon like, but without java, and much less
sophisticated), and need some licensing advice (since, well, I'll also be
maintaining a debian package for it, I'm asking here)
This is suppo
On Monday December 29 2003 05:09, Robert Millan wrote:
> I think there should be no problem, specialy since pvpgn hasn't recieved
> any notice from Blizzard, and they're hosted in Germany where the DMCA
> doesn't apply. (...)
DMCA doesn't apply there, but the local flavour of EUCD (European Union
On Thursday 09 October 2003 14:24, Gabucino wrote:
> Gabucino wrote:
> > I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion
> > into Debian.
>
> Please list _actual_ licensing problems of MPlayer so we can discuss them -
> the purpose this list exists for.
>
> The following is
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 19:26, Gabucino wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > d, libmpeg2 - We - the core developers - do not intend to waste
> > > time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know
> > > what exactly you wish for),
> >
> > All that's needed is to comply with G
On Monday 22 September 2003 16:58, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL
> with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our
> distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear
> fruit without a concrete
On Monday 22 September 2003 16:39, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Now, I think that the question is not really what the DFSG
> allows. Because it's pretty clear that the DSFG does not allow GFDLed
> documentation with Invariant section.
>
> The question is: do we think that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in
On Monday 22 September 2003 17:05, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ?
>
> Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that
> you repeat and repeat, do not convin
Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ?
On Monday 22 September 2003 14:32, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program
> and their documentation.
The point is whether every software IN DEBIAN needs to be free.
Mike
On Monday 22 September 2003 12:36, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
> software.
Who cares about the licence of your girlfriend photographs ? Are you willing
to put them in main ?
The point is that the photographs on your computer are _software_. Wh
On Sunday 21 September 2003 19:55, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> I do not consider a bug as a philosophical failure but a technical
> one.
Did you really pass P&P ?
Mike
--
"I have sampled every language, french is my favorite. Fantastic language,
especially to curse with. Nom de dieu de putain de borde
On Saturday 20 September 2003 18:47, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section?
> And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section?
Mathieu, are you too lazy to find by yourself that both sentences appear in
the "Distribution" section
On Saturday 20 September 2003 09:50, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> > synonymous.
>
> Richard, once and for all, please read
>
> http://lists.debian.org/deb
On Saturday 20 September 2003 11:08, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > On Saturday 20 September 2003 02:16, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > You seem to be suggesting that this would satisfy the distribution
> > > terms of the GFDL
On Saturday 20 September 2003 02:16, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> You seem to be suggesting that this would satisfy the distribution terms of
> the GFDL. Are you really suggesting this? If so, we may have a solution.
Unfortunately, the invariant sections are not the only issue for non-freeness
of
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
