"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The Mozilla team seems to be committed to supporting the
> Debian packagers in building both mozilla-firefox and
> iceweasel-browser packages from the same source base. Isn't this
> precaution enough?
We know the Mozilla Foundation licensing
On 01 Feb 2005 17:17:41 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This modified version has been approved of by at least one list
> > member[2].
>
> I don't remember much about Michael K Edwards except he's currently
> MIA from the New Maintainer queue
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's take just one example. The Mozilla Foundation is very keen that
> nothing ships as "Firefox" which contains spyware. How would you define
> "spyware" in a watertight way for the trademark license document?
It looks like it's called "Software Up
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:21:32PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> 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 Deb
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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,
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This modified version has been approved of by at least one list
> member[2].
I don't remember much about Michael K Edwards except he's currently
MIA from the New Maintainer queue.
http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=medwards-debian%40sane.net
Then
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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, fu
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:21:32PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> This is not a criticism of Eric - as Firefox package maintainer, his
> opinion is clearly important. But is this sort of thing merely something
> one has to accept when dealing with Debian, or is there anyone in
> authority who c
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
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [MJR sceptical that this sort of branding bug gets fixed quickly]
> To be honest (and I wrote the code in Bugzilla which does the
> reporting), that's more to prevent anonymous DOS, because they are very
> processor intensive. If you want to see them a
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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
>
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
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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,
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. That's why it's in
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
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I'm not planning to develop the instructions document by
> interactive trial-and-error with you on debian-legal ;-)
Fine, but at this time it's not easy to build a firefox-based browser
that Mozilla Foundation would be happy with, even with readi
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:29:10 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
> > specific. Whether or not this is actually against DFSG #8 or not is
> > beside the point, I don't want to play if it's onl
Scripsit Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
> specific. Whether or not this is actually against DFSG #8 or not is
> beside the point, I don't want to play if it's only because we're the
> popular kid. This problem goes beyond Debian.
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
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
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > 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 general.useragent. to
> change various bits. [...]
Should I set th
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:14:34 +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Replace "the name of the package will have to be changed in all
> as-yet-unreleased versions of Debian" with "permission to use the
> trademarks will be withdrawn for all as-yet-unreleased versions of Debian".
>
* Alexander Sack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[snip]
> Mike appears to be subscribed to this list ... Eric, will you jump in if
> you have any objections, etc.?
Alright, jumping in... I'm not subscribed to the list and didn't
really have any idea this was generating so much traffic. I went back
and
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
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So the only way out of this is to not contaminate main and to not
stop distributing a firefox package by:
1. packaging weasel packages for main
2. putting a brand (extension) package named firefox in non-free.
On furhter thought,
Scripsit Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So the only way out of this is to not contaminate main and to not
> stop distributing a firefox package by:
> 1. packaging weasel packages for main
> 2. putting a brand (extension) package named firefox in non-free.
On furhter thought, a different an
Gervase Markham wrote:
yes, for main this is definitly true. For non-free it would be your
decision to allow it (or deny) and our decision to do it (if
technically possible at all). So if you allow other distributions to
distribute the original icons (i don't know if you really do that or
want
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
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
Gervase Markham wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here. The Firefox and Thunderbird
official logos (e.g. the fox-on-globe) are covered by a different
license which is far too restrictive for Debian. They are not in the
downloadable source tarball, so no work would be needed to remove them.
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 free.
> >>
> >Is there really a big dif
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
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
Mike Hommey wrote:
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 nece
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not far off that. You should only have to change it in
> fingers-of-two-hands places at most; anything else is a bug.
At the moment, it has bugs. For example, it took a damn sight
longer than 10 minutes (excluding new graphics) and still
the blast
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
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
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:53:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
> > > tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In the extreme case we could ship a firefox package that depend on a
iceweasel package that contains the actual program while firefox is just
a dummy package that cause iceweasel to call itself firefox.
It would be natural to do th
Scripsit Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If it happens that the Debian packaging make very hard to rename
> that package, we cannot blaim the Mozilla fundation for that and we
> should rather try to fix the packaging scripts.
It is true that we cannot blaim Mozilla for the Debian packaging
m
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:53:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 inv
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:59:17 +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 unobjectio
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. [...]
Here's my attempt at comments. Thanks for drafting this, but
I'm worried that it tries to restrict future maintainers in exchange
for permissions that I'm not sure are needed anyw
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
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:59:17 +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 unobjectio
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. [...]
Here's my attempt at comments. Thanks for drafting this, but
I'm worried that it tries to restrict future maintainers in exchange
for permissions that I'm not sure are needed anyw
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
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. IANADD,
IANAL. Thanks to Gervase for being such a pro.
Cheers,
- Michael
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. IANADD,
IANAL. Thanks to Gervase for being such a pro.
Cheers,
- Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
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
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
52 matches
Mail list logo
