Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 07:40:04PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> > 1) as many have pointed out in the thread, DFSG should apply to the
> > freedoms of a specific piece of software, rather than to a specific
> > kind of licenses/policies.
>
> Does 1) means that you
Charles Plessy writes:
> - If such a program is trademarked by its name, will it be free if it has a
>free copyright license, plus restrictions on commercial use through a
>trademark license, because it can be escaped by rebranding ?
I believe such a program would only be acceptable in
Hi again,
I have more questions and comments.
Le Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 07:40:04PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> 1) as many have pointed out in the thread, DFSG should apply to the
>freedoms of a specific piece of software, rather than to a specific
>kind of licenses/policies. So
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> 2) what I'm proposing is in essence the second part of the first choice
>in your dichotomy, i.e. extend interpretation of DFSG §4 to other
>distinguishing marks (I notice that you mention sounds, but I do not
>think they are in the realm of trademark prote
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 08:08:57PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> sorry to be difficult, but after reading again your proposal, I do not
> understand whether you propose to apply the DFSG to trademark licenses and to
> have a more liberal interpretation of DFSG #4 for copyright licenses which
> att
Le Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> Let's see if, once again, we can make a "a summary" thread an order of
> magnitude larger than the original thread. For more context (and
> comparison!) you can find the original thread at
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian
Russ Allbery
> MJ Ray writes:
> > Uoti Urpala
> >> [...] A meaningful trademark license cannot permit everything permitted
> >> under the DFSG; at some point you do have to rebrand the software and
> >> remove use of trademarks to be allowed to further exercise DFSG
> >> freedoms (a limitation a
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:09:56PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Craig Small writes:
> > Now, the only difference is the fix. For a license it is removing the
> > package for a trademark it is renaming, maybe. Sentences like that are
> > exactly why our proposed trademark policy should be what it is
Craig Small writes:
> Now, the only difference is the fix. For a license it is removing the
> package for a trademark it is renaming, maybe. Sentences like that are
> exactly why our proposed trademark policy should be what it is.
I'm confused. What distinction are you drawing of license versus
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:03:35AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> "This software and its derivatives are endorsed by Gervase Markham,
> until such time as he withdraws that endorsement for a particular
> derivative. If he does so and informs the maintainer of that
> derivative, this paragraph must
MJ Ray writes:
> Uoti Urpala
>> [...] A meaningful trademark license cannot permit everything permitted
>> under the DFSG; at some point you do have to rebrand the software and
>> remove use of trademarks to be allowed to further exercise DFSG
>> freedoms (a limitation allowed by DFSG 4).
> Hi!
Gervase Markham writes:
> On 21/02/12 10:36, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Secondly, it allows retrospective amendment: I'm sure such licences
>> have been rejected in the past (often called the "tentacles of evil"
>> test). Non-permanent licences that could start failing DFSG 1 or 3 at
>> an arbitrary-but-u
On 21/02/12 10:55, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Aren't you confusing trademark policies (the position of trademark
owners on what we'll be considered infringement and what won't) with
trademark licenses (one-to-one agreements between trademark owners and
users, that allow the latter to use the trade
On 21/02/12 10:36, MJ Ray wrote:
Does the presence of those two sentences in a README make the software
non-free?
Yes! Firstly, the paragraph should allow its retention with a
different name as the endorser. DFSG 3: Derived Works.
That seems a little hair-splitting. A) I'm not sure it doesn
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:14:47AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> I think it would be great for Debian to develop some guidelines as
> to what sort of things are OK, and not OK, in a trademark license in
> order for Debian to be happy with shipping it. That could include
> such provisions as:
Thi
Uoti Urpala
> [...] A meaningful trademark license cannot permit everything
> permitted under the DFSG; at some point you do have to rebrand the
> software and remove use of trademarks to be allowed to further
> exercise DFSG freedoms (a limitation allowed by DFSG 4).
Hi! This looks like the unpr
Le Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:05:32AM +, Gervase Markham a écrit :
> On 20/02/12 16:12, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >I support dropping our trademarks. We have to show the way. We have a
> >strong
> >tradition of idenfifying ourselves via trusted information networks that are
> >under our control;
Gervase Markham
> On 20/02/12 03:43, Craig Small wrote:
> > That all sounds like a good reason to reject this hypothetical package.
> > Retrospectively being able to change the trademark terms sounds like a
> > "tentacles of evil" problem.
>
> Surely only if the "remove the trademark now, please"
On 19/02/12 16:57, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
At the same time, even when we are *allowed* to keep something trademark
encumbered in the archive without rebranding (either because we
distribute it unchanged, or because the associated trademark policy is
fine with the kind of changes we're interest
On 20/02/12 16:12, Charles Plessy wrote:
I support dropping our trademarks. We have to show the way. We have a strong
tradition of idenfifying ourselves via trusted information networks that are
under our control; mostly our keyring. We can also make a step further and
include links (possibly
On 20/02/12 03:43, Craig Small wrote:
That all sounds like a good reason to reject this hypothetical package.
Retrospectively being able to change the trademark terms sounds like a
"tentacles of evil" problem.
Surely only if the "remove the trademark now, please" command has some
effect on the
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:43:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Compared to other organisations (Linux Foundation, Python Software
>> Foundation, GNOME Foundation, etc…), we do not have a clear trademark
>> license or policy.
> (Which alone shows that defending re
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:43:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that we can't make requirements or recommendations on others
> trademarks without applying them to ourselves.
Right. And in fact the proposal I've drafted applied equally to us as it
applies to other. In fact, part of the "e
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
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
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
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Craig Small wrote:
> That all sounds like a good reason to reject this hypothetical package.
> Retrospectively being able to change the trademark terms sounds like a
> "tentacles of evil" problem. Trademark isn't all about trust, it's
> also about control. We, unf
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 07:56:11PM +, 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
> > thi
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 against the underlying principle
> of
Let's see if, once again, we can make a "a summary" thread an order of
magnitude larger than the original thread. For more context (and
comparison!) you can find the original thread at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/10/msg00028.html
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 08:02:01PM +0200, Stefano
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 05:28:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Has the project received competent legal advice stating that a package name
> would be interpreted as infringing a trademark, and that we might have to
> rename it?
We have now received such a legal advice. Actually we got two that
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:12:15 -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> Let's proactively assume the following "reasonable"
> outcome of the legal advice I'm going to seek:
>
> - we are allowed (by trademark law) to ship unmodified copies of
> trademark encumbered materia
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 08:02:01PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> as recent events have shown, we need to discuss our general stance on
> trademarks and the impact that trademark licenses (should) have on the
> content of the Debian archive.
Let's resurrect this.
We seem to have one big mis
Hi,
Sorry to be late to the party; although I am surprised that the
discussion of this topic did not persist beyond 24 hours...
On 10/10/11 00:02, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> From a philosophical point of view, there are essentially two stances we
> can take: either DFSG should be applied to trad
* Stefano Zacchiroli [111010 13:58]:
> > Note that I am not talking about violating the terms of a trademark
> > *license* here, which I maintain we generally have no reason to seek
> > (or accept), but about whether such use infringes actual trademark
> > rights directly.
>
> Whether the license
Steve Langasek writes:
> The controlling principle is that we are not trading on the names of
> the upstream works and as a result we have no need of a license - so
> it doesn't matter what kind of hare-brained restrictions upstreams
> include in their trademark licenses because we don't need a l
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 18:11 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:11:21AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 08:02:01PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> > > My own proposal, that I submit to your consideration, is as follows:
>
> > > - DFSG applies
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:11:21AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 08:02:01PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> > My own proposal, that I submit to your consideration, is as follows:
> > - DFSG applies to copyright license; trademark restrictions should not
> > make a
Le Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 08:02:01PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> My own proposal, that I submit to your consideration, is as follows:
>
> - DFSG applies to copyright license; trademark restrictions should not
> make a package DFSG non-free (philosophical part)
>
> - however, trademar
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 05:28:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Has the project received competent legal advice stating that a package name
> would be interpreted as infringing a trademark, and that we might have to
> rename it?
I haven't sought such advice myself, nor I'm aware of any such advi
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 08:02:01PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Problem statement
> =
> The question we need to answer is whether DFSG should be applied to
> trademark licenses or not.
Our answer to this question has always been "no" and should continue to be
so.
> The Debi
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> Problem statement
> =
>
> The question we need to answer is whether DFSG should be applied to
> trademark licenses or not.
That doesn't seem quite right.
The DFSG doesn't apply to licenses; it applies to works of software.
Social Contract §1 refers
On Sun, 2011-10-09 at 20:02 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[...]
> The reason of the non-DFSG-freeness of the Debian logo is that its
> *copyright* license tries to do some sort of trademark protection as
> part of its terms. Reifying trademark protection in a copyright license
> is a bad thing p
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 08:05:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> "When creating the DFSG, I recognized, and respected, the right of
> authors to manage their own brand using trademarks, and to restrict
> the use of those trademarks in derived works as long as DFSG-compliant
> use of the software would be
Stefano Zacchiroli
> as recent events have shown, we need to discuss our general stance on
> trademarks and the impact that trademark licenses (should) have on the
> content of the Debian archive. [...]
Thank you for pushing this important but depressing topic forwards.
> Impact analysis [...
Dear all,
as recent events have shown, we need to discuss our general stance on
trademarks and the impact that trademark licenses (should) have on the
content of the Debian archive. As background for this discussion I
suggest going through the recent issue with the current GNOME trademark
licens
55 matches
Mail list logo
