Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 06:05, Adam Warner wrote: > tag 212895 > thanks Note that the sarge-ignore tag has now been removed. I located the correct syntax [tag 212895 - sarge-ignore] in a document referenced from , i.e.

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:48:48PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > I question why the Debian bong should not also be under the same > license. Cool. Where can I buy a Debian bong? -- G. Branden Robinson| If you want your name spelled Debian GNU/Linux |

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

tag 212895 thanks I have attempted to remove the sarge-ignore tag (control is BCCed). Until there is evidence of explicit authorisation from the release manager this appears to be a clear procedural abuse. http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags sarge-ignore This release-critical bu

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

reopen 212895 severity 212895 serious tag 212895 sarge-ignore thanks On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: > The first is (ostensibly) what the bug was filed to deal with, and why > I reopened it. The second is quite definetly out of the scope of the > BTS. I hope for a equitable resolution to

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:42:03PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > I may have misread this thread, but it sounds as if you are trying to > > ignore that such an absurdity exists, rather than fix it. > > Now I confess to being a little slack in the concept of software freedon > (for instance I us

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > What I've been saying is the BTS is the wrong place for solving this > problem. There are (at least) two problems here: 1. The inclusion of bits that are not DFSG free in a package. [The official logo in this case.] 2. The license/copyright/trademark

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

[Mail-followup-to set to debian-project] On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 12:55:41AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > > > It won't happen; it would defeat the purpose of the > > > Official Use Logo.) > > > That purpose being? > > B-R-A-N-D-I-N-G. > M-E-A-N-I-

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, MJ Ray wrote: > I may have misread this thread, but it sounds as if you are trying to > ignore that such an absurdity exists, rather than fix it. Now I confess to being a little slack in the concept of software freedon (for instance I use things like pine and mplayer which are

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 04:41:32PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-10-04 05:55:41 +0100 Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >The reason I'm being so insistent on this topic, is once again the > >absurdity of not being able to identify an official Debian product > >with an > >official

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 08:52:05PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:26:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [...] > > I agree with Richard; I think we should leave the Open Use logo [...] > I'm confused. > > I interpreted Richard as saying that the Official Logo could be unr

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:26:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > People have asked "why isn't the official use logo DFSG-free?" on > > > > > > As far as I remember, the conclusion has always been "It should be; > > > we're inappropriately using copyrights to enforce a trademark > > > res

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:46:15PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > Hmm. Your mailer is honoring MFT, but not sending it: you CC'd > Jaldhar, but didn't maintain him in the MFT. Might be a good thing to > fix, so other people don't get blamed for CCing someone due to a third > party dropping the hea

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

Hmm. Your mailer is honoring MFT, but not sending it: you CC'd Jaldhar, but didn't maintain him in the MFT. Might be a good thing to fix, so other people don't get blamed for CCing someone due to a third party dropping the header. :) On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 05:16:54PM +0300, Richard Braakman wr

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On 2003-10-04 05:55:41 +0100 Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The reason I'm being so insistent on this topic, is once again the absurdity of not being able to identify an official Debian product with an official Debian logo. I may have misread this thread, but it sounds as if you

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:39:32AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > People have asked "why isn't the official use logo DFSG-free?" on > d-legal in the past, and there was a resulting discussion. I'm > sure it's happened on other lists, too. As far as I remember, the conclusion has always been "It sh

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: >> [I'm not interested in playing bts tennis.] > Thanks. Although it would have be nice if you would have just tagged it wontfix and/or sarge-ignore and kept it open so the discussion could have been Cc:'ed to t

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 12:55:41AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > Please set your Mail-Followup-To headers appropriately. > > Ok I think I've got pine setup appropriately. M-F-T isn't there, nor are any other headers that Mutt recognizes. However, you didn't CC me on this reply (which is what

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 12:55:41AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > It won't happen; it would defeat the purpose of the > > Official Use Logo.) > That purpose being? B-R-A-N-D-I-N-G. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:31:08PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > [I'm not subscribed. Please Cc me on replies.] > > Please set your Mail-Followup-To headers appropriately. > Ok I think I've got pine setup appropriately. > > The zeal of some Debian

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: > Of course it's legitimate for the Debian logo to be much more restricted > than software or documentation. But given that it's restricted, why > would you want to include it in a package in Debian, given that we > encourage people to freely redistribute

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:31:08PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > [I'm not subscribed. Please Cc me on replies.] Please set your Mail-Followup-To headers appropriately. > The zeal of some Debian Developers to remove things is extremely > discouraging. That should be the weapon of last resort.

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:23:07PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: > > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the > > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently > > interpreted it this way. > For documentatio

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Work is progressing on making the unofficial logo DSFG-compliant. > Then you will be able to use that one instead. > Yes but thats the unofficial logo. I want to be able to use the official logo. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> La Salle Deb

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > please keep the Cc: on any replies. > > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the > > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently > > interpreted it this way. > > For documentation I can still understand

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

[I'm not subscribed. Please Cc me on replies.] On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: > The number of Debian Developers that care so little about freedom for > anything not a program is extremely discouraging. > The zeal of some Debian Developers to remove things is extremely discouraging. T

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: > [Jaldar: I'm shifting this discussion to debian-legal and maintaining > you on the Cc: list. Appologies if you are subscribed.] > No I'm not so please keep the Cc: on any replies. > [Legal: I'm leaving the bug closed for right now, since I'm not > inter

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > The list is irrelevant as the applicability of the Debian Free > > _Software_ guidelines to graphical images is even more dubious than > > its applicability to documentation. The number of Debian Developers that care so little about freedom for any

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently > interpreted it this way. Sorry, forgot the footnote: 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-2003

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

[Jaldar: I'm shifting this discussion to debian-legal and maintaining you on the Cc: list. Appologies if you are subscribed.] [Legal: I'm leaving the bug closed for right now, since I'm not interested in playing bts tennis.] On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: >> I'm reopening this bug be