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
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
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
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:18:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > > About the only thing I've seen that will do (a) is static linking in
> > > an ELF object, or anything comparable. (b) is the one that we normally
> > > deal with in Debian.
Walter Landry writes:
> > > > We covered all this earlier, and there was no good explanation of why
> > > > Eclipse + Kaffe is bad but other GPL-incompatible packages + GPLed
> > > > Essential: yes packages are okay. For example: does any non-GPL
> > > > package that calls out (using only cross-p
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:43:08PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
>> But none in Debian main. People seem to be missing the point, so I
>> will repeat: I am not saying that Eclipse is not distributable, just
>> that it can't go into main.
>
> That's easy to
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
>> > > > We covered all this earlier, and there was no good explanation of why
>> > > > Eclipse + Kaffe is bad but other GPL-incompatible packages + GPLed
>> > > > Essential: yes packages are okay. For example: does any non-GPL
>
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:43:08PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> >> But none in Debian main. People seem to be missing the point, so I
> >> will repeat: I am not saying that Eclipse is not distributable, just
> >> that
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 05:54:40PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> In this context, I mean "credible analysis of the legal issues". Eben
> Moglen and Bruce Perens were both publicly quoted in the lead-in to
> the MySQL trial as being confident that MySQL would win a preliminary
> injuction on t
Brian repeatedly asserts that the relationship between Eclipse and Kaffe
is not "mere aggregation", but declines to say what that relationship is.
To my knowledge, the only relation between Eclipse and Kaffe other than
"mere aggregation" is that Kaffe runs Eclipse. But the GPL also states
that th
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
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
> and does not contain any copyright-protected portion of Kaffe. It is
> possible to claim that "Eclipse+Kaffe" is a work based on Kaffe, but
> by the same argument, "Debian" is a wo
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:52:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
> > and does not contain any copyright-protected portion of Kaffe. It is
> > possible to claim that "Eclip
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:28:33 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> This is meta discussion about an oversimplification. It's basically
> correct, but I don't think the emperor is running around nude, even if
> that hat is a bit skimpy.
I don't think claiming that contract law has
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Since there is a stronger relationship there than the weakest relation
> that could be called aggregation, it isn't mere aggregation. It's
> aggregation and something else. Thus, GPL 2b applies.
The ending of GPL 2 is clear to me: If the two works are not related
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
>> and does not contain any copyright-protected portion of Kaffe. It is
>> possible to claim that "Eclipse+Kaffe" is a work base
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
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,
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:52:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> It seems to me that "mere aggregation" must be the smallest idea that
> is still aggregation.
What is "the smallest idea"? Do you mean "the least restrictive idea"?
For example: both pieces of software happen to exist at some
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:01:53 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right that one technology being used instead of another won't
> make a difference if the same end is achieved. But, in the same way,
> "reach across a published functional interface" is a technical detail
> whose s
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:01:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The end being achieved is a major factor in finding a "functional
> interface" for legal purposes.
We're in violent agreement, here.
> The GPL is indeed an offer of contract, but it ties standards of breach
> so closely to copy
Dear SouthTrust customer,
Fraudulent activity has been registered on your account. Click here to prove your identity.
Once you have confirmed your account records you will be able to continue using your SouthTrust Internet Banking account.
Copyright © 2005 SouthTrust. All Rights Reserve
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
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> But the FSF is going to lose a lot of credibility, even with the
> choir, if they wait until their noses are rubbed in it in the next
> lawsuit to admit that there isn't any universal "law of license" in
> the real world after al
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
> > Since there is a stronger relationship there than the weakest relation
> > that could be called aggregation, it isn't mere aggregation. It's
> > aggregation and something else. Thus, GPL 2b applies.
>
> The ending of
Walter Landry writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> > > Since there is a stronger relationship there than the weakest relation
> > > that could be called aggregation, it isn't mere aggregation. It's
> > > aggregation and something else. Thus,
> Walter Landry writes:
> > GPL 2 uses a different term: "work as a whole". The different
> > sections do not have to be related by copyright at all.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:48:26PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> If the two works are not related by copyright, then they are merely
> aggregated.
Raul Miller writes:
> > Walter Landry writes:
> > > GPL 2 uses a different term: "work as a whole". The different
> > > sections do not have to be related by copyright at all.
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:48:26PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > If the two works are not related by copyright, th
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> To summarize you argument: Debian includes both GPL-incompatible work
> X and GPLed work Y. Work X can be run on top of other programs than
> work Y, but Debian does not distribute those alternatives.
That last clause ", but Debian
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
>
> > > Walter Landry writes:
> > > > GPL 2 uses a different term: "work as a whole". The different
> > > > sections do not have to be related by copyright at all.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:48:26PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote
Walter Landry writes:
> Debian adds in all of the debian-specific control files, including man
> pages. Even if you discount that, Debian reserves the right to modify
> Kaffe at will.
Debian-created man pages, or any other modifications of Kaffe, could
somehow make Eclipse a derivative work of K
Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:52:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
> > > and does not contain any copyright-protected portion
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:30:30PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > If so, what is the difference is between Y=Kaffe and Y=Linux? Linux
> > exempts syscall-using clients from being directly covered by the GPL,
>
> That is the difference. Linux has an exemption and Kaffe does not.
... as far as I
Walter Landry writes:
> What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
> entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
> appropriate input and parse openssl's output. Would that constitute
> linking? It ends up using all of the same code as the directly linked
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>>>But why do you think RMS is so keen to have a working, FSF-owned Hurd?
>>
>>NIH syndrome. What is your explanation?
>
> I'm sure he'd like to make a system with guaranteed only free
> programs
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:12:56 +, Andrew Suffield
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>Some of those python scripts may be derivatives of GNU readline. Most
>>are probably not. Those that are must be licensed under the GPL. The
>>rest do not have to be. All this i
* 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
43 matches
Mail list logo
