Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>> That was done by me for Cebit, like we did for some other years already.
>
> Well, it seems to lack the proper labeling then.
>
>> -legal is the wrong list for this, there is no legal issue beh
--- Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> But it says "Debian sarge special",
As you can see the facts from the web page:
http://www.linux-magazin.de/Produkte/Bestellen/lm_04_06_dvd.html
things can be terribly misleading:
1. You can see "DVD-ausgabe mit Debian Sarge".
There is *no* "Spez
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As you can see the facts from the web page:
> http://www.linux-magazin.de/Produkte/Bestellen/lm_04_06_dvd.html
> things can be terribly misleading:
>
> 1. You can see "DVD-ausgabe mit Debian Sarge".
> There is *no* "Spezial" or "Unofficial" wording on t
Scripsit Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But for the people who *erroneously* believed it's an official release
> (something like 3.1r3 or something), they could have asked for a free
> download to be available.
That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them to
an
On 7/10/06, Robinson Tryon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I still haven't found a license from Adobe for the Times font, so I
will contact the upstream xfree86 maintainers and go from there. I'll
post a followup once I have more information.
For anyone interested...
The licensing for the Adobe T
> That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them
> to anything.
This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
misuse of its trademarks.
I can see on the DVD cover: "Debian Sarge". This is all you can see on both
the cover and the DVD. I'm going t
Scripsit Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
> misuse of its trademarks.
You are the only one who thinks that a trademark is being misused.
You are wrong.
> Not finding any download location, all I can imagine is
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 12:20:59AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10717 March 1977, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> > 2. It clearly contains packages not on the official update list. AFAIK,
> > backports like FF1.5 and X.org are not _official_ for Sarge.
> Yes, where is the problem?
> Before I
Hi again!
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060717 18:51]:
> > That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them
> > to anything.
> This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
> misuse of its trademarks.
Please, it is not a misuse of ou
On 10718 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Yes, they attached it to the Magazine. And gave us a good number of
>> dvds for free.
> When posting on such questions using your debian.org email address, please
> try to be clear about what "us" you're referring to. I have never heard
> that LinuxMa
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 19:54 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> You are the only one who thinks that a trademark is being misused.
> You are wrong.
You are not in court. Neither of us has the right to declare the other
is wrong.
I am *not* the only one -- I am only one with such a blunt language.
Ste
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 22:05 +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> *We*, Debian Developers, contacted *them* and asked them to sponsor this
> DVD.
1. As long as it's not their project, is it really unofficial, as it's
made bu DDs?
2. Being it unofficial as it's said to be, as long as it holds "Debian"
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 10:26]:
> --- Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > No, it isn't labelled "sarge".
>
> As I can see from the _pictures_ (magazine cover + DVD), it's labeled "Debian
> Sarge" very prominently.
Well, the print on the cover is not optimal,
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 19:04]:
> > That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them
> > to anything.
>
> This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
> misuse of its trademarks.
This rather sounds like a trollish remar
Hi!
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060717 23:27]:
> Because I suppose that if I made up my own "modified Debian" and I'm
> sticking it to a magazine and label it "Debian Sarge, enhanced", I could
> be sued for that. I SHOULD BE SUED FOR THAT.
If we promise to sue you, if you do suc
Scripsit Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 19:54 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> You are the only one who thinks that a trademark is being misused.
>> You are wrong.
> You are not in court. Neither of us has the right to declare the other
> is wrong.
You can be w
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:32:43AM +0300, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> 2. Being it unofficial as it's said to be, as long as it holds "Debian"
> in the label, could you explain *WHY* the following wording from
> http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/
> does *not* apply?
> "Debian GNU/Linux is distribu
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:04:30 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 11:47:39PM +0200, Gregory Colpart wrote:
>
> > I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
> > software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
>
> Upstreams change license to BSD-like to be sure to have DFS
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Because I suppose that if I made up my own "modified Debian" and I'm
> > sticking it to a magazine and label it "Debian Sarge, enhanced", I could
> > be sued for that.
> You can always be sued, but if you could _lose_ the suit, i
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:04:18 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> If there WERE anything that said that modified versions of Debian
>> must be "avavilable for free download", it would mean that something
>> is seriously, horribly, wrong. It would be a non-free requirement.
> You mea
20 matches
Mail list logo
