On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:54:54 +0100, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:03:44 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me clarify. :-)
Let me muddify. :-)
> > I have few complaints with the treatment of material for which the authors
> > *claim*
Come to think of it, the "copper top" is a fun example; think of the
use of the phrase in The Matrix. Also common slang for a redheaded
person in parts of the US. There's an argument that "copper" and
black helps get across the "battery" meaning of a tiny icon. Is
Duracell in danger of losing co
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:53:52 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
> > What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
> A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction
> not present in the GPL.
In my latest message I didn't really say what I really mea
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
> interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license
> under the G
Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images
provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark.
I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report.
Thanks to everybody who help me to understand the problem.
--
.''`.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
>
> > The fact that we have conveniently
> > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far
> > does not make it go away.
>
> It is my understanding th
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.
> Er, that's what a trademark i
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> > Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> > minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
> > of
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that we have conveniently
> > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD lic
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:46:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > > Firefox" and are cl
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> > > I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of
> >
> > > the new OASIS[1] IPR draft.
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:51:32 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen escribía:
> I wouldn't be horribly surprised if the names "hummer" or "rubik" are
Is "HMMV" a registered trademark?
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer.
I don't think it's right to distribute other people's tra
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:03:39AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images
> provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark.
>
> I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Regarding
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
>
> I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
> logo and diluting their trademark.
>
> I'm also going to write letters to Duracell
William Ballard writes:
> Regarding
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
>
> I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
> logo and diluting their trademark.
>
> I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer.
>
> I don't think
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Regarding
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
>
> I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
> logo and diluting their trademark.
>
> I'm also going to write letters to Duracell
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Regarding
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
> I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
> logo and diluting their trademark.
> I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Na
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
Context is everything.
- David Nusinow
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm
There's one now. It's perfect
William Ballard writes:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
Without knowing context and intent, we cannot answer; since you have
not related that to Debian, I do not wish to go into
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
> allows us to do the s
* Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050111 11:45]:
> > It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in
> > /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to
> > *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going
> > beyond and requiring tha
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
> selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
> to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art
> were nearby.
K
William Ballard writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
> > selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
> > to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or no
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
>> selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
>> to do with Debian, and he'd be doing
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:36:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Removal of the pacman image is the
> only one that I can see any case for at all
Even if this were once true (which I doubt), there's no chance that
anybody still has a valid trademark on pacman; it's diluted to the
point of being co
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> clearly what it is". Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
> depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart.
Or Mr. Peanut.
You've got the F
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:38:34PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart.
> Or Mr. Peanut.
What good would that accomplish?
[I'm hoping you can give me a meaningful answer.]
Also, is there some reason to represent a "Mr. Peanut" instead of just
a regu
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> clearly what it is". Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
>> depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
>
> I dare you to package the golden
I hope the thread will just die soon, we're going round and round.
CC me on replies so I don't have to start new thread.
Regarding:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00359.html
Raul said:
> As an aside, if you want to get some company's logo, usually a google
> image search of the f
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
> is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
> > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
>
> File this as an RFP; you are unlikely
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
>
> Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the
> terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need
> to now (eg dist
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:14:47PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
> >
> > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the
> > terms of the licenc
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
>> > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of c
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of
> understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even
> remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely
> licensing the result.
William Ballard writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of
> > understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even
> > remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:53:52 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
> > What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
> A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction
> not present in the GPL.
In my latest message I didn't really say what I really mea
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
> interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license
> under the G
Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images
provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark.
I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report.
Thanks to everybody who help me to understand the problem.
--
.''`. A
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
>
> > The fact that we have conveniently
> > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far
> > does not make it go away.
>
> It is my understanding th
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > Firefox" and are claiming "Firefox" as an extra name.
> Er, that's what a trademark i
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Is Debian's trademark policy "freedom-restricting"? [...]
> > Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some
> > minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights
> > of
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that we have conveniently
> > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD lic
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:46:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name.
> > > They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called "Mozilla
> > > Firefox" and are cl
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> > > I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of
> >
> > > the new OASIS[1] IPR draft.
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:51:32 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen escribía:
> I wouldn't be horribly surprised if the names "hummer" or "rubik" are
Is "HMMV" a registered trademark?
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
Regarding
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
logo and diluting their trademark.
I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer.
I don't think it's right to distribute other people's tra
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:03:39AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images
> provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark.
>
> I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Regarding
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
>
> I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
> logo and diluting their trademark.
>
> I'm also going to write letters to Duracell
William Ballard writes:
> Regarding
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
>
> I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
> logo and diluting their trademark.
>
> I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer.
>
> I don't think
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Regarding
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
>
> I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
> logo and diluting their trademark.
>
> I'm also going to write letters to Duracell
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Regarding
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
> I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked
> logo and diluting their trademark.
> I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Na
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
Context is everything.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm
There's one now. It's perfect
William Ballard writes:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
Without knowing context and intent, we cannot answer; since you have
not related that to Debian, I do not wish to go into
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
> them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
> sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
> allows us to do the s
* Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050111 11:45]:
> > It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in
> > /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to
> > *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going
> > beyond and requiring tha
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
> selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
> to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art
> were nearby.
K
William Ballard writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
> > selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
> > to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or no
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
>> selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
>> to do with Debian, and he'd be doing
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:36:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Removal of the pacman image is the
> only one that I can see any case for at all
Even if this were once true (which I doubt), there's no chance that
anybody still has a valid trademark on pacman; it's diluted to the
point of being co
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> clearly what it is". Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
> depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart.
Or Mr. Peanut.
You've got the F
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:38:34PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart.
> Or Mr. Peanut.
What good would that accomplish?
[I'm hoping you can give me a meaningful answer.]
Also, is there some reason to represent a "Mr. Peanut" instead of just
a regu
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> clearly what it is". Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
>> depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
>
> I dare you to package the golden
I hope the thread will just die soon, we're going round and round.
CC me on replies so I don't have to start new thread.
Regarding:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00359.html
Raul said:
> As an aside, if you want to get some company's logo, usually a google
> image search of the f
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
> is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
> > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
>
> File this as an RFP; you are unlikely
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
>
> Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the
> terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need
> to now (eg dist
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:14:47PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
> >
> > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the
> > terms of the licenc
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
>> > is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of c
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of
> understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even
> remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely
> licensing the result.
William Ballard writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of
> > understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even
> > remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
other people's designs as "original clip art."
It is exciting when someone uploads a new cool lighter
[Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> However if nobody stands up and say clearly, that there IS a problem,
> that GPL and CPL/APL are NOT compatible, and cannot be linked togethe
82 matches
Mail list logo
