On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:48:35AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:35:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> On 2003-10-06 20:53:56 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >trademark law doesn't allow us t
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:35:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> On 2003-10-06 20:53:56 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >trademark law doesn't allow us the same latitude for selective
>> >enforcement that copyright law does
>>
>
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:35:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-10-06 20:53:56 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >trademark law doesn't allow us the same latitude for selective
> >enforcement that copyright law does
>
> Can you be more specific, please? I was recently chal
On 2003-10-06 20:53:56 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
trademark law doesn't allow us the same
latitude for selective enforcement that copyright law does
Can you be more specific, please? I was recently challenged about
this and cannot point at why this would be.
--
MJR/sl
On 2003-10-08 08:40:33 +0100 Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
*sigh* If you accuse me of calling people things, then try to at least
back you claims.
Very pretty email
but leaves main point alone.
Considered reading any history yet?
Software is not just programs
at least not in Englis
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> What, for example, would the preferred editing form of an icon
> included a program be?
Whatever form was used to create the icon in the first place, or as
close to that form as is possible to come. [.svg, .xcf, etc.]
> Often, these are rendered versio
Manoj Srivastava:
> Amazing. Faced with a conundrum, you assume that that people saying
> so must be dumb, and refuse to investigate further to see where the
> fallacy lies.
*sigh* If you accuse me of calling people things, then try to at least
back you claims. I haven't said anyone is dumb, I on
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:01:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, that argument can wait until someone actually tries to ship a
> package maintainer or author from the Debian mirror network.
>
> If you figure that out, please let me know before you go public with it
> -- I'd like to have the
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:20AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the logotype
> isn't software, and can't be treated as such, even less than
> documentation can be treated as software (which also is quite an absurd
> notion).
>
> What's up
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003, Nick Bannon wrote:
> It has been started - e.g. Brian T Sniffen's suggested list of
> necessary documentation freedoms, as incorporated into the GFDL
> position statement that the Project Secretary has been assembling:
I had always assumed those to be akin to RMS's 4 freedoms
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:30:20 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Simon Law:
>> That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But that
>> doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference,
>> please read the debian-legal thread I linked to.
> To me the
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:1 6:28 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> MJ Ray:
>> I suggest you review some of the messages recently sent to
>> debian-legal,
> I don't read debian-legal, but I've read some of the messages
> referenced from DWN. I don't agree.
>> including the one
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 03:00:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If we want to exclude more things from the DFSG, we need to write up a
> proposal to modify the social contract appropriately and extend
> another set of guidelines to apply to it. To this point, no one has
> taken up the gauntlet and
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 11:24:26AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > I don't see how that follows, unless you fail to distinguish between
> > Debian-the-project and Debian-the-distribution.
> >
>
> I do. Debian the project only exists for the sake o
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I don't see how that follows, unless you fail to distinguish between
> Debian-the-project and Debian-the-distribution.
>
I do. Debian the project only exists for the sake of the Debian
distribution. SPI is for all the fiddly legal bits.
--
Jaldhar
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:02:59AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:20AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> > > Simon Law:
> > >
> > > > That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But
> > > > that does
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-10-06 19:57:06 +0100 Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A logo is a graphical equivalent of a name.
>
> I do not believe that, either. The logo is more of a creative work
> than a word.
>
Semiotically a logo is (or should be if the marketing
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:20AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> > Simon Law:
> >
> > > That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But
> > > that doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference,
> > > please read the debi
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> MJ Ray:
>> Bruce Perens clarified that the DFSG were written to apply to
>> everything in debian
>
> This means that we cannot include stuff like software licenses in
> Debian, which in turn means that we cannot really distributed Debian
> itself.
Copy
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:16:28AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> > including the one where Bruce Perens clarified that the DFSG were
> > written to apply to everything in debian
>
> Yeah, I saw that one. This means that we cannot include stuff like
> software licenses in Debian, which in turn mea
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 06:02:18PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > > 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
On 2003-10-07 08:16:28 +0100 Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't read debian-legal, but I've read some of the messages
referenced from DWN. I don't agree.
It is very easy to write "I don't agree" but it is not an argument. I
suggest you explain your reasons for not using this no
MJ Ray:
> I suggest you review some of the messages recently sent to
> debian-legal,
I don't read debian-legal, but I've read some of the messages
referenced from DWN. I don't agree.
> including the one where Bruce Perens clarified that the DFSG were
> written to apply to everything in debian
Y
On 2003-10-07 06:30:20 +0100 Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the logotype
isn't software, and can't be treated as such, even less than
documentation can be treated as software (which also is quite an
absurd
notion).
I suggest
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:20AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> Simon Law:
>
> > That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But
> > that doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference,
> > please read the debian-legal thread I linked to.
>
> To me the argument
Simon Law:
> That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But
> that doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference,
> please read the debian-legal thread I linked to.
To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the logotype
isn't software, and can'
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 04:21:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This isn't particularly complicated to resolve; all we need to do is
> provide a DFSG-free copyright license, and to ensure that our logo is
> protected as a trademark, and enforce those rights.
>
> This doesn't conflict with the DFS
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:57:06AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 04:48:59PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2003-10-06 15:46:01 +0100 Eric Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >However, if you look at the logo as a component of Debian as a whole,
> > >and consider derived work
On 2003-10-06 19:57:06 +0100 Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A logo is a graphical equivalent of a name.
I do not believe that, either. The logo is more of a creative work
than a word.
As to your example, you should note that the BSD licence does not
attempt to enforce the tradema
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:03:12PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> Let's say that I am an artist in the employ of BAD DNA Inc., an
> evil bioengineering conglomerate. I really like the font used by the
> Debian Open Use logo, so I think I shall derive our new corporate logo
> from the font used in
Eric Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, if you look at the logo as a component of Debian as a
> whole, and consider derived works of the logo to be derived works of
> Debian, and invoke the exception of clause 4 to allow Debian to
> require derived works to carry a diffent name (and by
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 04:48:59PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-10-06 15:46:01 +0100 Eric Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >However, if you look at the logo as a component of Debian as a whole,
> >and consider derived works of the logo to be derived works of Debian,
> Surely the logo is a w
On 2003-10-06 15:46:01 +0100 Eric Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, if you look at the logo as a component of Debian as a whole,
and consider derived works of the logo to be derived works of Debian,
Surely the logo is a work on its own, as well as part of the greater
"Debian" work?
> Now perhaps I picked DFSG 8 incorrectly. But do you not see how
> onerous this restriction is?
No, I don't. Your scenario seems completely manufactured.
When you look at the logo as its own work, and apply the the DFSG
rules, it may run afoul of the letter of the DFSG, but not the
spirit.
H
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 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
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.
40 matches
Mail list logo
