Hi Gervase,
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 01:03:02PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> 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 §
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
Gervase Markham writes:
> On 26/08/11 23:09, Ben Finney wrote:
> > This effectively means that the trademark license must be universal
> > and open to all recipients, regardless of Debian, otherwise it's not
> > a free work under the Debian guidelines.
>
> If you interpret the DFSG that way
I d
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
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:13:26 -0400 Amos Blanton wrote:
> Thanks for this information.
You're welcome.
> I ran into Mako Hill yesterday and we now
> have a new plan of action:
>
> - GPL v3 Scratch (Assuming I can get the rest of my team on board).
Mmmmh, I am not a big fan of the GNU GPL v3 (
Amos Blanton writes:
> Thanks for this information. I ran into Mako Hill yesterday and we now have
> a new plan of action:
I'm glad you are having these discussions.
> - Separate trademark license to allow Debian and other distros to
> distribute the package with our trademarks (the cat, the na
o read you!
A project I'm interested in is considering the The Educational
Community License 1.0
[...]
Why, oh why, do people go on writing new useless licenses?
It seems that they cannot help but increase license
proliferation... :-(
[insert here the usual rant against license proliferation, w
2011/8/19 Francesco Poli :
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:56:43 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
> Hi Miriam,
> nice to read you!
Nice to read you too! Thanks for your answer!! :)
> Apart from the fact that it is the n-th non-copyleft permissive license
> and that whoever is considering to adopt thi
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:56:43 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Miriam,
nice to read you!
>
> A project I'm interested in is considering the The Educational
> Community License 1.0
[...]
Why, oh why, do people go on writing new useless licenses?
It seems that they cannot
2011/8/19 Andres Mejia :
> Here's another helpful link. [1] Scroll down until you see notes about
> the Educational Community License.
>
> 1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Thanks, but please notice that I'm talking about Educational Community
License 1.0,
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A project I'm interested in is considering the The Educational
> Community License 1.0 [1]:
>
> ---
>
> This Educational Co
Hi,
A project I'm interested in is considering the The Educational
Community License 1.0 [1]:
---
This Educational Community License (the "License") applies
to any original work of authorship (the
12 matches
Mail list logo
