On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 04:42:00PM -0400, Mike wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> >Usually the advice is to write your own code based on descriptive
> >information about the protocol, without looking at the original
> >implementation. In other words, use the RFC, not the code.
> >This avoids accus
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> The setence is ambigous if broken down sufficiently. However, if the
> Anthony's language is sufficient, it strikes me that the GPL is way
> too verbose. All you would need the GPL to say to require such a
> limited changelog would be "provide a n
Followup for :
http://bugs.debian.org/207932
Thanks you for helping debian tracks licencing issues. Though this
bug looks like an extension of the GFDL issue to some non
documentation texts. This have not been agreed upon by
debian-legal (in fact as far as i know "licences" and such
documents have
Hello,
I'm surprised that someone thinks that there's any controversy on this
point. As I understand it, the current situation is that, with the
release of sarge, everything in Debian should be DFSG free, including
programs, documentation, and miscellaneous files (as in this case), as
well as eve
I posted this earlier but it seems to have been blocked. LMI has a new
policy for the "Linux" trademark that is going to be a problem for
Debian. See http://www.linuxmark.org/ .
Thanks
Bruce
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
The userlinux project has been approached by the Linux Mark Institute
with a demand for money in order to make use of the "Linux" trademark.
Said demand would also apply to the Debian project. I believe their
terms to be non-DFSG-compliant. See http://www.linuxmark.org/ . Debian
has made historicia
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The userlinux project has been approached by the Linux Mark Institute
> with a demand for money in order to make use of the "Linux" trademark.
> Said demand would also apply to the Debian project. I believe their
> terms to be non-DFSG-compliant. See http
On 6/17/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 04:42:00PM -0400, Mike wrote:
> > Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > >Usually the advice is to write your own code based on descriptive
> > >information about the protocol, without looking at the original
> > >implementation
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>If you don't have any contractual relationship to the vendor or any
>information obtained through privileged access, then you don't have to
>worry about trade secrets, just copyright.
>
Michael,
Clean-room is an excellent strategy for avoiding copyright infringement.
It
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 02:05:40PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Drew Scott Daniels:
> >
> > > I think the first objection that I have is that there doesn't seem to be
> > > source code to the Sun Studio 10 compiler (I may be wrong though)
> >
>
* Stephen Frost:
> I'm not entirely sure that what Debian does wouldn't fall under the
> "descriptive use" concept. "Debian GNU/Linux" is more like "Debian for
> GNU/Linux" than "DebianLinux".
I don't think anybody knows how trademark law applies in the context
of goods which are expected to be
* Dylan Thurston:
> I'm surprised that someone thinks that there's any controversy on this
> point. As I understand it, the current situation is that, with the
> release of sarge, everything in Debian should be DFSG free, including
> programs, documentation, and miscellaneous files (as in this ca
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> I'm surprised that someone thinks that there's any controversy on this
> point. As I understand it, the current situation is that, with the
> release of sarge, everything in Debian should be DFSG free, including
> programs, document
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't see DFSG coming into this at all and, no, I don't think we need
> to run around and remove the word "Linux" from the entire distro or some
> such nonsense.
Maybe so; it's still an open question how the DFSG deals with tradema
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
>
> only "copying.paper" sounds like a license; the rest are simply documents,
> which must be DFSG-free to be in Debian. This is not a matter of
> controversy, or even signifi
On 6/17/05, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clean-room is an excellent strategy for avoiding copyright infringement.
> It enables someone to write a functionally compatible program without
> having seen the original. In an infringement case, it makes it entirely
> plausable to the court t
On 6/17/05, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The userlinux project has been approached by the Linux Mark Institute
> with a demand for money in order to make use of the "Linux" trademark.
> Said demand would also apply to the Debian project. I believe their
> terms to be non-DFSG-compliant
On 6/17/05, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure that what Debian does wouldn't fall under the
> > "descriptive use" concept. "Debian GNU/Linux" is more like "Debian for
> > GNU/Linux" than "DebianLinux".
>
> I don't think anybody knows how trademark law applies in
On 6/17/05, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The userlinux project has been approached by the Linux Mark Institute
> with a demand for money in order to make use of the "Linux" trademark.
> Said demand would also apply to the Debian project. I believe their
> terms to be non-DFSG-compliant
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Dylan Thurston:
> > I'm surprised that someone thinks that there's any controversy on this
> > point. As I understand it, the current situation is that, with the
> > release of sarge, everything in Debian should be DFSG free, including
> > programs, d
Raul Miller wrote:
>Reading the LMI site, they're only requiring a license on
>uses of Linux which are not labelling OS software.
>
Maybe you misread it. According to the license terms, "AUTHORIZED
GOODS/SERVICES", including software, do require a license.
Thanks
Bruce
--
To UNSUBSCR
On 6/17/05, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
> >
> > only "copying.paper" sounds like a license; the rest are simply documents,
> > which must be DFSG-free to be i
On 6/17/05, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >Reading the LMI site, they're only requiring a license on
> >uses of Linux which are not labelling OS software.
> Maybe you misread it. According to the license terms, "AUTHORIZED
> GOODS/SERVICES", including software, do
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:20:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 6/17/05, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller wrote:
> > >Reading the LMI site, they're only requiring a license on
> > >uses of Linux which are not labelling OS software.
> > Maybe you misread it. According to th
On 6/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux already has already been established as meaning the linux kernel
> as well as distributions involving the linux kernel. It's a generic
> term in that context.
That alone doesn't make it a generic term; it suggests that Linus
doesn't objec
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > The userlinux project has been approached by the Linux Mark Institute
> > with a demand for money in order to make use of the "Linux" trademark.
> > Said demand would also apply to the Deb
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Of course, other alternatives would be to ask if they'd let us have a
> > license without the costs, given that we're a not-for-profit, etc.
>
> Non-Profit Tier
>
> Annual Fee ??? US$2
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:13:39PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> They are out of the scope of the DFSG. They are neither programs nor
> documentation: they are speeches and articles which are logically
> non modifiable without the consent of their author.
Sorry, you're wrong. The Social Contract
The problem isn't the cost. Even the most expensive tier is only
$5K/year. It's the license terms. As usual for agreements drawn up to
accomodate the commercial software vendors of the world and not us, they
don't take into account sublicensing of our product.
I'd be happy to license their mark fo
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The problem isn't the cost. Even the most expensive tier is only
> $5K/year. It's the license terms. As usual for agreements drawn up to
> accomodate the commercial software vendors of the world and not us, they
> don't take into account sublicensing of o
Stephen Frost wrote:
>What's the scenario you're concerned about here? Someone taking Debian
>and distributing it as "MyLinux" and Debian not protecting that use
>somehow?
>
> Stephen
>
>
Not even that. The license only applies to "(c) on AUTHORIZED
GOODS/SERVICES which are (i) produced b
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> >What's the scenario you're concerned about here? Someone taking Debian
> >and distributing it as "MyLinux" and Debian not protecting that use
> >somehow?
> >
> Not even that. The license only applies to "(c) on AUTHORIZED
> GOO
Well, Linus purpose here is to keep people from using the mark for
stuff that isn't Linux at all, and to keep someone from attempting to
appropriate the mark and restrict others from doing so.
It's just the implementation that sucks.
This was done by OSDL lawyers or Gervaise Davis' law firm a
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 01:40:17AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> What's the scenario you're concerned about here? Someone taking Debian
> and distributing it as "MyLinux" and Debian not protecting that use
> somehow?
Debian certainly cares about the terms under which Debian can be reused;
this is
It's not at all clear to me that we need to sublicense anything.
It's not at all clear to me that we need to have anything authorized.
It's not at all clear to me how our use of the term could reasonably
be seen as dilution of the Linux mark.
If people want to get this matter clarified, official
35 matches
Mail list logo
