On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:48:48PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> I question why the Debian bong should not also be under the same
> license.
Cool. Where can I buy a Debian bong?
--
G. Branden Robinson| If you want your name spelled
Debian GNU/Linux |
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 07:20:37PM -0700, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:07:14PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'm interpreting you correctly. Are you suggesting
> > that I suspend this proposal until a more definitive position can be
> > reached by the trademar
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:42:03PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > I may have misread this thread, but it sounds as if you are trying to
> > ignore that such an absurdity exists, rather than fix it.
>
> Now I confess to being a little slack in the concept of software freedon
> (for instance I us
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:07:14PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:25:18PM -0700, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > Since there are already people working on this, I think that the most
> > constructive thing will be to follow up on the DPL's announcement in
> > regards to the tradema
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 06:54:55PM -0400, Eric Sharkey wrote:
> > Well, that's a simplification. But Debian can modify the logo
> > to refer to something else, say goldfish, while other people cannot. So
> > the playing field isn't open, so it isn't DFSG-free.
>
> You are completely misrepre
> > > In any case, the logo violates DFSG 8, so that trumps the
> > > affordance given by DFSG 4. If I extracted it from Debian and used it
> > > to refer to something else, I would be disallowed from modifying it.
> >
> > Again, that's not how I interpret it. The logo license says the logo ha
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:48:42PM -0400, Eric Sharkey wrote:
> > [ You e-mailed me privately, so I'll keep it that way. But I'll remove
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to keep Manoj's INBOX smaller. ]
>
> You can quote/forward me anywhere if you like. devel-announce is supposed
> to be very low traffic
M-F-T set to debian-project.
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 06:23:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 05:35:14PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > The old Open Use logo was not DFSG-free, so we really shouldn't be
> > shipping it in main.
>
> Where are we shipping it in main? And even if
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:25:18PM -0700, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> Since there are already people working on this, I think that the most
> constructive thing will be to follow up on the DPL's announcement in
> regards to the trademark committee and to get involved in the efforts
> already underway.
* Anthony Towns [2003-09-20 17:07]:
> By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, "HP
> Debian Labs".
I'd also have no problems with this. However, I also think that the
Debian Labs should not be used to make a profit. I think a HP Debian
Labs should be of a similar nature as
10 matches
Mail list logo
