Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> This discussion seems to have gone into the weeds about WHY someone
>>> would want to make a change and whether Debian is able to make such
>>> changes reasonably.
>
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Well,
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
In practice, this means that the version string displayed in the file
log of a LaTeX run will be different, and that the user, or a developer
of a package that uses "the work", has the possibility to check for the
version and act accordingly; it does of co
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In practice, this means that the version string displayed in the file
> log of a LaTeX run will be different, and that the user, or a developer
> of a package that uses "the work", has the possibility to check for the
> version and act accordingly; it does
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:15:06AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> A human can tell the difference if he bothers to look. System software
> does not change behavior based on this human identification.
Well, it might: if the software uses the "human identification" to select
which font to use when rend
Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 13:43 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry:
> Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[documentation license]
> > Ok. Here my suggestion:
> >
> > /--
> > > Copyright (C)
> > > [..]
> > \--
> >
> > I included your suggestions and changed "d
On 1/30/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't this cause problems when the code is forked? If someone in
> France forks the code, then they have to travel to Scotland to defend
> themselves against any frivolous lawsuits. That allows the original
> licensors a bit more control ov
Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 13:43 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry:
> > Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [documentation license]
> > > Ok. Here my suggestion:
> > >
> > > /--
> > > > Copyright (C)
> > > > [..]
> > > \
Hi! This was intended for debian-mentors, but since it is a legal
issue, I thought it would be more appropriate here.
I'm packaging Shishi, a Kerberos implementation, for Debian. The term
"Kerberos" is a trademark held by MIT, according to RFC 1510:
Project Athena, Athena, Athena MUSE, Discu
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:28:54PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Project Athena, Athena, Athena MUSE, Discuss, Hesiod, Kerberos,
>Moira, and Zephyr are trademarks of the Massachusetts Institute of
>Technology (MIT). No commercial use of these trademarks may be
>made without prior
Scripsit Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm packaging Shishi, a Kerberos implementation, for Debian. The term
> "Kerberos" is a trademark held by MIT, according to RFC 1510:
...
> My question is: What is Debian's policy on trademarks for terms used
> in documentation and package descriptio
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:45:25 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:52:00PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
[...]
> > Let's face it: Debian wouldn't exist without the FSF.
>
> Maybe not. Neither would a lot of other things. That's a strawman
> that doesn't change where things ar
Henning Makholm
> Does the use of a trademark word to refer unambiguously to a specific
> technical protocol in package descriptions and documentation (that is,
> not in marketing materials) even require a trademark license? I know
> that it certainly does not in Denmark, but of course that does no
12 matches
Mail list logo
