On 2006-01-31 00:40, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:34:25 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > "olive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free
> > > software if
> >
> > there were in accordance to the FSF.
> >
> > I personally th
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
"olive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they operated in accordance with
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 04:22:01PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive> >"olive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
olive> >
olive> >>I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software
if
olive> >
olive> >there were in accordance to the FSF.
olive> >
olive> >I per
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>
>
>>Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
>>
>>"No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require
>>the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access
>>to that work. Accordingly, no program lic
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:45:49PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
> Without taking a stance on the GFDL issue, I agree with the fact that
> Debian should be cautious not to go to far in it's assessment of
> licenses. In my view, a license can be free and yet not ideal, the two
> are different. And I fee
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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,
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:18:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 re
9 matches
Mail list logo
