Florian Weimer wrote:
> Do Debian or SPI participate in the GPL v3 process?
>
> I think Debian should, to make sure that license compatibility does
> not decrease substantially, and that things like the purported
> anti-DRM clauses remain practical.
We'd love to, but it's not a open process at t
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> The stated goal of the trademark committee was to come up a policy
> that was as permissive as possible (in the DFSG sense) while still
> operating within what is required by trademark law. Unlike copyright,
> failing to enforce or taking a completely permissive attitude t
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:34:41AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
>> This latest round was provoked by the DCC announcement. I participated
>> in the DCCA meeting yesterday evening. The organization has agreed to
>> call themselves the Debian Common Core Association in order to
Cc:ed to dcca-discuss, since that's who needs to change this FAQ.
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:01:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Look at the www.dccalliance.org website:
They need to be asked to change their FAQ to remove more trademark
infringements. It refers repeate
João Pinheiro wrote:
> There are quite a few differences between them. The most notable one
> would be the packaging system, .deb vs. .rpm, where Debian really kick
> the hell out of Red Hat.
Some of the core packages have some substantial differences as well, such
as the network management scrip
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> What is the current status of the work going on to try to make some of
> the Creative Commons licenses acceptable according to the Debian free
> software guidelines? I know there were a workgroup being formed in
> March, and I hope they are doing good work.
>
> I
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> "Yann Dirson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Debian is not listed in the list of supported OS on the VMware
>> website[1].
> [...]
>
> I asked my contact at VMware (a manager) about the situation.
> The message I sent him was this:
>
>> It's recently come up on the Debian m
Don Armstrong wrote:
> Just to clarify what the current status of my delegation to resolve
> the trademark issues surrounding the DCCA:
>
> The DCCA/DCC has changed their name to be a recursive acronym, thereby
> removing any mention of Debian's mark in their name, and resolving the
> primary tra
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> their FAQ still contains an enormous amount of misuse of the Debian
>> name, as noted in a message I sent on a different thread (and cc:ed
>> to them). I think this can all be fixed if they just rewrit
John Hasler wrote:
>> They need to be asked to change their FAQ to remove more trademark
>> infringements.
>
> Careful. While I agree that all the changes you suggest are desireable, I
> think that most are nominative and so do not infringe the
> trademark.
Well, the ones I mentioned later, per
"Firmware" are programs. They are binary executables designed to run on a
CPU.
Source code is clearly mandatory under the DFSG for programs.
There is no room for discussion here; the binary-only firmware is clearly
non-free.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:52:20AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060108 11:12]:
>> > There where two fully independent issues here :
>> >
>> > 1) some (many) of those firmware using modules had a sloppy licencing
>> > situation, which m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>licenced modules. If we don't want to do that, the most honest way to
>handle it is to get another GR out the door,explaining that this is not
>easily possible or convenient at this time, and asking for an explicit
>exception for kernel firmware. I would second such a GR.
t it works just fine.
Again, those rumors are entirely false, so pay no attention to them.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This belongs somewhere else. Directing followups to -project.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:43AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I will immediately propose a GR to
> > amend the Social Contract to explicitly all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>Nobody is lying. A "lie" is an untruth made with the intent to deceive.
OK, conceded. Debian is being untruthful. There, happier? I don't
particularly claim that there is an i
to
actually subscribe due to the suckiness and quota issues of my email
accounts.
Perhaps someone could fix either konqueror or kmail so that clicking on the
mailto links on the web pages put in the correct headers.
Or someone could fix mozilla-firefox or mozilla-thunderbird so that clicking
on the mailto links would actually open up a new mail message.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Theocracy, fascism, or absolute monarchy -- I don't care which it is, I don't
like it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aintainers do try to adhere to the Social Contract.
But nothing happens when a maintainer doesn't (or when a maintainer has a
completely invalid interpretation of the Social Contract and refuses to
abandon it, to be more charitable) -- the Social-Contract-violating package
just stays in D
Stephen Gran wrote:
Do you really think that
there is a magical difference depending on where you ship a file?
It's not a "magical" difference. It's a documentation difference. And a very
important
one.
There's a big difference between "We'll have random non-free stuff mixed
loosely into
t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apt-cache policy `dpkg -S /path/to/file | awk -F: '{print $1}'`
will tell you where the file came from, and whether it's free, if it's
part of a deb.
It will?
I don't see the licenses for the files in /usr/share/common-licenses
listed, nor the licenses for the /usr
intact. That would be a possible response to the situation of
the last however many years if FTPmaster were a software project. (And
then if the fork was worse, the existing FTPmasters could say "Told you
so.") But I don't see a way to do it.
-- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL P
Is there one? I think there needs to be.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nstallations which
can filter that feed by category, resulting in a feed containing only those
announcements for the packages which are actually installed on the machine,
which is served locally and is not available to other machines. This local
feed can then be read with any RSS agregator on the loca
ply to
firmware, defined as ."
I would strongly oppose such a change, but it would be a legitimate,
reasonable GR (requiring 3:1 supermajority of course).
In contrast, clause 4 of Steve Langasek's proposal is a backhanded and
not very forthright way of trying to change the DFSG without
Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process.
I can't second because I'm not a DD, but this proposal is very eloquent and
well-thought out. You *rock*. This statement would be a worthy foundation
document.
--
Nathanael Nerode
eaken it to state something vaguely like:
"We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component,
except for those components which are shipped as part of the hardware the
system runs on (such as the BIOS). We will strive to make the system not
require those components either,
e from a
> "here are the rules of data freedom, now i must follow them" point of
> view, but really don't make sense to the vendor, nor to the user. It
> seems like an all-or-nothing approach.
Well, if you don't realize that non-free exists to make exactly this
compro
ree material onto the installation CDs?
Actually, that would be an compromise OK with me: the installation CDs only
get used the once, and the material would be clearly separated out into the
non-free section during and after installation.
Doesn't address the legal issue of whether material without
;RE NOT CONSIDERING DOING THAT. I hate to shout, but *have* you heard of
non-free? It was mentioned in the post you're replying to!
well, we are considering doing it in the cases where the firmware is
*improperly licensed*. There, the benefit is (a) not getting sued and
protecting downstrea
ecially since there was a link to the vote page.
>
> Does anyone themselves have had problems figuring out what
> this was all about, or is it merely hypotheticals?
It was pretty clear, but "Amend the Constitution (assets handling)" would
have been better. Just in case so
hen it
> is false.
One is not a reasonable number, of course, but I thought you might be
interested in the anecdote.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Worth noting, then, that most of the "firmware" at issue does *not* have
valid licenses to distribute at all.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
when we have a 5-day head start. Whether the
> company in question *is* actually such a business or it is just making
> empty promises, can of course not be discerned just by reading their
> ad.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said
, and the machines didn't
crash simultaneously, then the buildds could handle it.
Buildd redundancy is supposed to be an architecture release requirement;
it was waived because so many architectures were flunking it. Is any
progress being made on fixing this for etch and the future?
--
Natha
" is an absolute necessity at the moment. Technically, *everything*
in Debian is "contrib" because it depends on non-free software shipped with
your computer, such as the BIOS. :-/ Furthermore, it acts as an awareness
area for "free software in chains", which may help the
x27;s vacation, a compromise of that one machine will root every
i386 Debian system. (I hope it's at least as secure as ftpmaster, but two
single points of failure are worse than one.)
Redundancy is needed for alpha, amd64, hppa, arm, and ia64 as well,
according to that chart.
--
Nathanae
t
of packages for QA to find and fix.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to detect/analyse.
How big are your clients? If they're good-sized companies with a spare
computer, they can compile all the packages they use locally from Debian
source with not *too* much work.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he w
f heroes for success.
"Culture of people who are willing to send a few emails". Yes, indeed,
we depend on that.
Manoj, you're making mountains out of molehills.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why is
cant.
> At this point, I am unsure what to do --- technically, since
> the proposals seconded are unlikely to be identical, byte for byte,
If the above is done, only whitespace and decorative "cut here" material
will differ. Resolutions are identical if they are identical
nly
> true.
Actually, it's certainly false, as Branden Robinson has explained
with Supreme Court citations.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When you derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble --
> and you modify and rename the rest to create your own license.
>
> Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
> rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.
They are normall
arts of Debian.
> Cheers,
> Aurelien
>
> PS: I am not a candidate.
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/07/msg3.html
> [2] http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_policy.html
> [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2006/11/msg8.html
> [4] http://list
immediately followed up by setting up an
Red herring. Please deal with the stated problem rather than changing the
subject, not that I expect you to.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison
or
review of all changes including backported security fixes. Debian's Mozilla
programs will probably be more up to date than all other distributions'
versions, apart from the usual "Debian stable is really old" thing.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Read i
Somebody calling himself "Craig Sanders" wrote:
"a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals
*exclusively* with the *relationship* of the publishers or authors of the
Document to the Document's overall subject" (emphasis mine) -- it does not
matter in the slightest if thes
(MJ Ray)
and it also contradicts
with "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" because no
topic of a secondary section can used as the main purpose.
(Matthew Wilcox)
I don't think that's an interesting case though. Why would you take a
document that has nothing to do with a particular subje
Adrian Bunk wrote:
One day, a system administrator using Debian asks:
Why is $foo in non-free?
Case 1: foo = nvidia binary modules
Answer: Because these modules are binary-nonly and therefore
undebuggable for everyone except Nvidia. They give you a
much better 3D performance, but the
Sven Luther wrote:
> 1) non-free-but-freely-distributable
>
> Which would hold all the files which are freely distributable, but fail
one
> of the freely modificable criterias of the DFSG.
>
> 2) rest of non-free
>
> Which would include all but the ones in the first part, and impose s
> Several of you work closely with GNU people. A question
> for you. Is the FSF a body like the IETF, W3C or Debian
> in which stakeholders make reasonably collaborative
> policy decisions together?
No.
> Or is "FSF policy" more or
> less another name for "the views of Richard M.
> Stallman"?
C
Some poorly informed person ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I get it already, everything is "software" in Debian and that issue is simply
>not up for debate or vote. (Some people on your side are just more direct ?
>about it.)
Actually, there were several years of debates and two full-scale votes,
Branden Robinson wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2003/debian-project-200310/msg00156.html:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:32:11AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
However, I don't want to use this example to justify further
violations; I'm also not happy tha
vaunted
oversight is flaky at best and illusory at worst.)
If my claims are challenged, I hope that some of the people who I am referring
to regarding the complaints about the current state of things will speak up.
--
Nathanael Nerode
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
omplaints for a few months,
I'll send a congratulatory email to the ftpmasters, who will deserve it.
More patient and optimistic than I sometimes appear,
Nathanael Nerode
--
Nathanael Nerode
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
eral Debian Developers -- ones
who have not discussed the topics on public mailing lists, apparently out
of fear of blacklisting! -- *believe* it to be true is very disturbing,
and provides in and of itself evidence of serious communication problems.
--
Nathanael Nerode
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 02:44:31PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
>> - On a talk at Madrid, Miguel de Icaza who is a close friend of mine
>> BTW, used female secretaries as examples of clueless users.
I'd have used bosses -- come on, doesn't anyone read Dilbert?
I know specifically of
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:57:46AM +0100, G?rkan Seng?n wrote:
>> >> I believe we need a new section called "gnustep", just like we have
>> >> one for gnome and kde.
>> > I think this is a good idea. Would it start by being populated with
>> > anything depending on g
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Yes, you should indeed complain about the "so easy your grandmother can
> use it", but not because it discriminates against women; rather,
> because it discriminates against men.
There is no substantive difference between the two, IMNSHO; I feel no need,
when pointing out
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> "AS" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> AS> Sure, and that's best accomplished by everybody not being a
> AS> wuss.
>
> It doesn't make you a wuss to be respectful to others. Quite the
> contrary: the strong know their own strength and don't n
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> If people address issues rather than personalitites then everything
> you have said is completely irrelevant, because they aren't going to
> be perturbed by the "speech" pattern of the people they are talking
> to, so we can phrase things however we damn well please.
You'r
I think so. That's what the Social Contract says.
However, there seem to be an awful lot of people who disagree. (Some of them
even seem to think that the Social Contract says something different,
although I simply can't see any basis for that.)
Perhaps you think the Debian system distribution,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 03:47:40PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Philippe Troin wrote:
>>
>> > I always vote, probably for the same reasons I vote in my country's
>> > elections (mostly to prevent the people I disagree with the most to
>> > get into offi
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I've been having some discussions with Chris Rourk (SPI counsel) lately
> about Debian trademarks and his points are worth discussing. His opinion
> is that Debian would be best served by abandoning its marks and
> purposefully making the term "Debian" generic. There are so
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-07 07:31:27 +0100 Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> With the Debian trademark we want use that is almost entirely
>> unenforced
>> except for a few particular (and somewhat poorly defined) situations.
>
> The only well-defined situation I can see at the mo
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Poole ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost writes:
>> > I don't get it. Doesn't this mean, also, that in the UK people *could*
>> > sell shirts with the Coke logo on them? In which case it would seem to
>> > me that the reasons above for having a trademark
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-07 14:55:36 +0100 Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>> If it's software, it seems illegal anyway. If it's not software,
>>> it's
>>> probably outside the scope of debian's registered trademark.
>> Uh, it'd only be illegal
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-07 14:20:37 +0100 Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Uh, or they use the Debian trademark for something that's not Debian
>> at
>> all.. That's not necessairly claiming it as backing or endorsement
>> from
>> Debian.
>
> If it's software, it seems illegal a
MJ Ray wrote:
Coming back to this
> On 2004-05-09 10:05:51 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Note that a trademark doesn't have to be registered to exist.
>
> OK, right, file, note the following about the previous emails:
> g
Michael Poole wrote:
> A trademark does not have to be registered to get common law
> protection, but protections for an unregistered trademark are almost
> useless: You will not get costs and attorney's fees in a suit for
> common law trademark infringement, only in a suit for Lanham Act
> (regis
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
>
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Recently, we've begun seeing more licenses that are designed to
> discourage patent lawsuits. They usually involve something along the
> lines of "If you engage in patent action against the licensor, bad
> things will happen".
>
> "Patent action against the licensor" usua
John Hasler wrote:
> Michael Poole writes:
>> Company B's "defensive" claims also affect all other users of the
>> original software -- now that they attempt to enforce their patent
>> rights, no other users can assume themselves to be safe.
>
> Why do you assume that company B's claims must have
Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:30:13 +0200, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> I don't believe that enforcing software patents is a legitimate "legal
>> right" that needs to be protected.
>
>
> It is fine that you think that people who sue for patent infringement are
> naughty, but it is also
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Glenn Maynard:
>
>> I don't believe that enforcing software patents is a legitimate "legal
>> right" that needs to be protected.
>
> There is no such thing, "software patents" is misleading. We are
> concerned with patents that can be infringed by software, not patents
Michael Poole wrote:
> This argument over-simplifies the case: No putatively free license has
> included a waiver of patent claims, just termination of patent and/or
> copyright license if you assert those claims. The interesting case
> (that some argue is free) is when your license terminates wh
75 matches
Mail list logo
