Hi all,
I think that we can't make requirements or recommendations on others trademarks
without applying them to ourselves.
Have we used our trademarks in the past, and how are we expecting to use them
in the future ?
Then, how does this use complies with our social contract ?
Compared to other
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 01:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 03:26:59PM +, Uoti Urpala a écrit :
> >
> > If you want to allow doing all modifications permitted by the DFSG
> > (which includes obnoxious ones) without the effort of rebranding, then
> > you must remove all u
Hello dear,
I'm selling links on some high PR sites (PR9 / PR8 / PR7). If you want to
buy such links, then do let me know.
Regards.
Ben Finney benfinney.id.au> writes:
> Uoti Urpala pp1.inet.fi> writes:
> > A trademark owner may trust the processes used by the Debian project
> > to produce results that meet their quality criteria, and may be able
> > to monitor the versions actually released by Debian and withdraw the
> > rig
Craig Small debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 03:26:59PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > requirements. That say Firefox is distributed under a DFSG-free
> > license means that any idiot who thinks it's a great idea to create a
> > browser that replaces all web page pictures with Goatse i
Uoti Urpala
> Craig Small debian.org> writes:
> > All of the sections in the DFSG are important. We could of, when
> > framing the DFSG, gone the easy path and not had a section 8 but we
> > didn't. To me the requirements that we will not accept a
>
> You can't trust entities like Debian to st
Uoti Urpala writes:
> Stefano Zacchiroli debian.org> writes:
> > - Debian should neither seek nor accept trademark licenses that are
> > specific to the Debian Project.
> >
> > (Suggested by Steve Langasek. In addition to Steve's reasoning, I
> > think that doing otherwise would go agains
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 03:26:59PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> You can't trust entities like Debian to stay "good" forever. The only
> practical way to maintain trust is to maintain some degree of control.
> You can't enumerate all the possible kinds of badness you'd want to
> forbid, and then gran
Le Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 03:26:59PM +, Uoti Urpala a écrit :
>
> If you want to allow doing all modifications permitted by the DFSG
> (which includes obnoxious ones) without the effort of rebranding, then
> you must remove all use of trademarks from Debian, including the
> Debian trademark itse
Andrei POPESCU gmail.com> writes:
> On Du, 19 feb 12, 19:56:11, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Thus, I think it would
> > make sense to have arrangements allowing Debian specifically to modify the
> > software in ways deemed necessary by the project without asking permission
> > for each individual change
Craig Small debian.org> writes:
> "tentacles of evil" problem. Trademark isn't all about trust, it's
> also about control. We, unfortunately, cannot ignore it but we have
> to deal with it our way.
>
> All of the sections in the DFSG are important. We could of, when
> framing the DFSG, gone the
Stefano Zacchiroli
> Going through the above, I suspect that the first provision (extending
> DFSG §4) might be controversial. But the more I think of it, the more
> convinced I am that it'd be in the spirit of the current wording of DFSG
> §4, as hinted by the title of DFSG §4. In fact, renaming
Jose Luis Rivas
> On 02/17/2012 06:11 PM, MJ Ray wrote:
> > http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/fsf-osi-list-diff.txt
> > shows the ones where OSI and FSF disagree, but what's the
> > point of knowing which are involved? Basically, OSI has
> > aided proliferation.
> >
> The point of my question
On Du, 19 feb 12, 19:56:11, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli debian.org> writes:
> > - Debian should neither seek nor accept trademark licenses that are
> > specific to the Debian Project.
> >
> > (Suggested by Steve Langasek. In addition to Steve's reasoning, I
> > think that doing
14 matches
Mail list logo
