* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Michael writes: > > Debian doesn't "need" such an arrangement, as I argued in a previous > > thread six months ago; there's the Coty v. Prestonettes standard and all > > that. But IMHO it would be advisable for both sides if such an > > arrangement were reached. > > Exactly. If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our users. > And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not > put us in a privileged position with respect to them: they have the legal > right to do everything that we want to do with or without permission. > > So let's accept the "arrangement" and move on. There is no DFSG problem > here even if we do accept the notion that the DFSG applies to trademarks.
If we don't need the "arragement", why exactly would we accept it anyway? -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
