Re: GUADEC report

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:41:52AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Branden Robinson writes: > > This is interesting. Do you have any references where I [can] read > > more about it? > > The correct term is "copyright misuse". Google finds lots of hits. > Wikipedia: > > > Also worth looking at is m

Re: GUADEC report

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > 1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free; This simply isn't how some people in the Project think. The alternative approach is to assume that anything is DFSG-free until proven otherwise. Historical evidence shows that m

Trademark misuse Was: Re: GUADEC report

Here is an interesting paper on trademark misuse: -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI

Re: GUADEC report

I wrote: > Attempting to use a copyright license to extend trademark rights beyond the > statutory ones may be copyright misuse. That could lead to the abuser > losing his copyright, his trademark, or both. Branden Robinson writes: > This is interesting. Do you have any references where I read m

Re: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 04:32:30 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The acrimony stimulated by the questioning of the mozilla license this late in the sarge release process is no small matter. It probably doesn't matter too much. debian-legal and [EMAIL PROTECTED] both seem not to move pa

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:32:24PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > MJ Ray writes: > > As such, if a copyright permission condition is an "everything is > > forbidden except X" trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates > > other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe

Re: GUADEC report

On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:07:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Well, while you're all vigorously agreeing with each other, it would be > nice if you guys would cite actual examples of debian-legal people "beating > upstreams about the head and shoulders with ideology". I never meant to imply

Re: GUADEC report

Matthew Garrett wrote: > I raised two main issues at the meeting itself: > > 1) The use of copyright law in an attempt to protect trademarks. This is > potentially going to be an issue for us, as it leads to artwork that we > can't distribute in main. This is also less than ideal for upstream >

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > This smacks of arrogance. Most -legal participants aren't lawyers, and as > such have no formal training in actual legal matters. Believe it or not, > such training does count for something. The point should be to cooperate > with the

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 07:09:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > "Confrontational" tends to be an excuse to avoid discussing the > issue. X-Oz is the last company I remember playing this game. It > generally takes the form of "We're giving you the software, so you > must accept our judgement of t

Re: GUADEC report (java-gnome)

Hi, On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 20:57, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > [...] The consensus appears to be that GNOME will never ship code that > > can't be run with free Java implementations. > > This is good news. Well done to GNOME. Note

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > This smacks of arrogance. Most -legal participants aren't lawyers, and as such > have no formal training in actual legal matters. Believe it or not, such > training does count for something. The point should be to cooperate with th

Re: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-07 02:41:27 +0100 Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do have a question on an individual package-by-package basis, who does have final say as to whether or not it follows the DFSG? I believe that, ultimately, ftpmaster are responsible for the archive. They listen to oth

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:31:34 -0400, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:43:06PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > > > Some companies feel that various licenses were > > > genuine efforts to be DFSG free ... > > > > Maybe some companies should genuinely stop > > tryi

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:43:06PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > > Some companies feel that various licenses were > > genuine efforts to be DFSG free ... > > Maybe some companies should genuinely stop > trying to invent new free licenses. Still, if > > (a) they feel that they absolutely mu

re: GUADEC report

Matthew wrote: > 2) The possibility that GNOME's adoptation of Java as an application > development language would result in software depending on a closed > JDK.The consensus appears to be that GNOME will never ship code that > can't be run with free Java implementations java-gnome has worked off

Re: GUADEC report

Matthew's report is interesting and appreciated. Some companies cannot seem to restrain themselves from stirring the mud in the license swamp, can they? Like three-year-old boys, they just love to stir that mud. > Some companies feel that various licenses were > genuine efforts to be DFSG free .

Re: GUADEC report

MJ Ray writes: > As such, if a copyright permission condition is an "everything is > forbidden except X" trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates > other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe > the trademark: it would mean we have no copyright permissions on t

Re: GUADEC report

I'm not really familiar with debian's release management, as has been pointed out to me with the strange effects of GR votes, so I'll only cover the debian-legal aspects. Please reply to debian-legal alone, asking for cc if you need it. On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROT

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:17:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 3) The way the DFSG is currently interpreted by debian-legal is not > obvious to an outsider, and some interpretations are felt to be > excessively extreme. Some companies feel that various licenses were > genuine efforts to be D