On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, David Starner wrote:
> Why are you worried? Trademark law seems fairly simple (for laws), and
> "open source" doesn't seem to make a difference here. It's just "We
> have this trademark, registered on the 31 of February 2002, they're
> using it without permission, and they igno
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:31:53PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Creating such a test would be a lot of work if you don't already
> > have one.
>
> Yes, I'm not thinking of a compatibility test suite. I'm thinking of
> things like "All modificati
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:31:53PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Is there a document or email somewhere that describes a situation where
> Debian has had to enforce its trademarks? Did anything go beyond an email
> threat to pursue? I'm just worried that no one's really tried to enforce
> a tr
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:26:13PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > I am pretty sure that such a clause has always been a part of the Apache
> > licenses. The intent is pretty simple - we don't want people calling
> > their commercial derivatives "Ap
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:26:13PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> I am pretty sure that such a clause has always been a part of the Apache
> licenses. The intent is pretty simple - we don't want people calling
> their commercial derivatives "Apache++", "ApachePro", etc.
I think there was an ear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:27:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
>> I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
>> package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
>>
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Hmm. In /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright there is this clause:
>
> 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache"
> nor may "Apache" appear in their names without prior written
> permission of the Apache Group.
>
> This seems
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > We could get the cited "prior written permission", but if that
> > permission applies only to Debian then I think we run into DFSG
> > clause 8, "License must not be specific to Debian".
>
> I don't think so. I think D
Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We could get the cited "prior written permission", but if that
> permission applies only to Debian then I think we run into DFSG
> clause 8, "License must not be specific to Debian".
I don't think so. I think DFSG #8 means "the software must be
free
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:38:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Hmm, it might not be DFSG OK until *after* you have renamed it.
> > Surely a Debian package is a derived product?
> If that was the case then the Apache package sho
Scripsit James Bromberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In December, 2000, the mod_backhand author wrote to me:
> > You, of course, don't need my permission to make it up into=20
> > a debian package (given the license,) but I appreciate you asking! =20
> > I would be delighted if you packaged and maintai
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:38:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:27:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> > I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
> > package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
> > much appreciated.
>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:38:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:27:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> > I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
> > package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
> > much appreciated.
>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:27:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
> package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
> much appreciated.
Hmm, it might not be DFSG OK until *after* you have renamed it.
Surely a D
Many thanks to Henning, John, Sam and Thomas;
I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
much appreciated.
James
--
James Bromberger www.rcpt.to/~james
* * C u in Bordeaux - 1st Debian Confe
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 10:28:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I missed the "with or without modification" in the header, so thought this
> > clause was the only thing granting permission for derived works. Had that
> > been the case, DFSG 3 wo
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I missed the "with or without modification" in the header, so thought this
> clause was the only thing granting permission for derived works. Had that
> been the case, DFSG 3 would be the controlling consideration and fail.
> But the permission for derivate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Apr 2001, Henning Makholm wrote:
>Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> > * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "mod_backhand"
>> > *nor may "mod_backhand" appear in their names without prior written
>> > *permi
Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "mod_backhand"
> > *nor may "mod_backhand" appear in their names without prior written
> > *permission. For written permission, please contact
> > *[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> UUGLY! Pin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, James Bromberger wrote:
>
>Dear Legal List,
>
>I have been asked to bring the licence for a package I am preparing for
>unstable, which I am hoping will go into main, to this list hoping to
>get a concensus that the licence is DSFG
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:28:15PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
>
> Would most people agree with this, and claim that this licence is DFSG
> compatible? Under what situations would this not be compatible?
>
This is simply the Apache license, with the names changed. Therefore,
since the Apac
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:28:15PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> Ralf Treinen has raised some concern with sections 4, 5 and 6, and the
> ultimate senntence in the licence, which I post here in full:
It looks fine. Standard BSD (with advertising clause), and some
additional clauses to requirin
Dear Legal List,
I have been asked to bring the licence for a package I am preparing for
unstable, which I am hoping will go into main, to this list hoping to
get a concensus that the licence is DSFG OK.
The package is an Apache module, libapache-mod-backhand, which performs
application level
23 matches
Mail list logo
