Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)

Hi! Wouter Verhelst [2005-06-15 1:29 +0200]: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /usr/bin/awk > rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 21 2005-03-28 10:49 /usr/bin/awk -> > /etc/alternatives/awk > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /etc/alternatives/awk > rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 13 2005-03-28 13:22 /etc/alternatives/awk -> >

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Eric Dorland | BTW, any Ubuntu developers care to comment? I'm interested in second | opinions and how you guys are handling this situation? Did you accept | an arrangement with MoFo? We've been in touch with them and have currently renamed the mozilla-firefox package to firefox. The same th

Re: namespace conflict != package Conflict?

Anthony Towns writes: > Uh, so why hasn't the option of renaming (or just dropping) GNU > Interactive Tools been discussed? Given it's nature (it's not a command-line tool), it seems that renaming the older executable/package to `git-shell' or something wouldn't be a huge burden on its users. -

Re: namespace conflict != package Conflict?

Steve Greenland wrote: On 12-Jun-05, 02:27 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You need to convince either git or GNU Interactive Tools to change its name upstream then. Since git is the newcomer and its name is already taken (by a GNU project no less!) perhaps you could start there

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: * Towns :: HTH, Always, Respectfully, My friends call me "Anthony" or "aj", for reference. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Japan Debian Mini Conf

Hello Thank you for question. I would like to hold English session. But I am searching translator. (And, I am looking for sponsor) At worst, I would like to hold some English session. On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:44:30 +1000 Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What will be the l

Re: Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)

Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > unstable really break sometimes but testing exist to be a always > working version. This is why sometimes things have a so long delay > to enters testing while it has something broken or with RC issues. Despite that delay and the tests, te

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Baptiste Carvello writes: > rename all elements that are difficult to change, like package names.. Before changing anything it might be worthwhile to get a legal opinion as to what (if anything) that Debian is now doing infringes the Firefox trademark. For example, I'm not at all sure that packag

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Jun 15, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's an important part in evaluating the balance between the priorities > > of our users and free software... > And where do we strike that balance in this case? I think gaining more > freedom for our users is the best thing in the long run. S

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

Em Dom, 2005-06-12 às 00:38 +0200, Frans Pop escreveu: > IMO we should try very hard to keep floppy installation supported. Everything depends on how much we're 'paying' for such a support. If the overhead gets very hard to handle we better choose to drop some support in order to keep ourselves sa

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Jun 15, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I never claimed the renaming would not be confusing and > > painful. Sometimes we have to do painful things because they're the > > right thing to do. I think everyone realizes a rename would suck

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:43:28PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > Why not? Trademarks are not software, and the mozilla trademark policy > > is not depriving anybody of freedoms about their code. > > *Their* trademark policy. Maybe the emphasis should have been there in > the first place. Do you

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > As I understand DSFG 8, this covers only the case that the firefox package > > distributed by Debian *as is* must still be usable legally when used > > outside Debian. > > Come on,

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 23:42 +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: > El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 15:35 -0400, Eric Dorland escribió: > > > We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their > > trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a > > deal that is Debian

Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 06:00:35PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > ok, that's gotta be invalid argument since this could be argued for > > ANY file so you would end up with links to EVERYTHING in /etc, so that > > program would know where to find li

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

[Peter Samuelson] > > FWIW, I agree with the proposed extension to DFSG#4: [in terms of > > distributing software,] Debian will not accept or exercise rights > > which cannot be granted to Debian's users. [Eric Dorland] > Proposed extension? Is this actually been on the table before? No, I wa

Re: C++ ABI change -- freezing unstable for new C++ library packages

Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 14:48 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > I maintain a package (hdf5) which contains a pure C library and a C++ > > interface. However, I'm pretty sure the C++ library isn't used by > > packages depending on it. In this case, is it necessary for the library > > to be renamed

Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hi! > > Erik Steffl [2005-06-12 16:25 -0700]: > > why is there a link to logs in /etc? > > > > /etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log is a link to > > /var/log/postgresql/postgresql-7.4-main.log > > The basic idea of the new cluster system was to have the comple

Re: Thunderbird & Firefox

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:53:35AM -0400, Robert Wolfe wrote: > Hi all! Could someone tell me if Thunderbird and / or Firefox are available > for download via apt-get? Perhaps you meant IceWeasel? I can see how you would make that mistake though.. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant parts

Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo schrieb am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 um 18:02:06 +0200: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote: > > > There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to binary package, > > > and architecture independent to data package. > > > > I consider s

Re: Japan Debian Mini Conf

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:45:06PM +0900, YABUKI Yukiharu wrote: >Hello, Debian Guys. > >I feel honer that I announce you Japan Debian Mini Conf. > >In last year, I held Debian BoF in Kansai OpenSource. (http://k-of.jp) in >Japanse >language. Any Debian people enjoyed BoF. > >I also joined Asia D

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

1. Completely ignore their Trademark Policy document and let MoFo come to us if they're not happy with our use of the marks. 2. Rename Firefox and strip all trademarks out. 3. Accept MoFo's offer of Debian-specific trademark usage. 4. Try to negotiate some other arrangement with MoFo. Why no

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Jun 15, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I never claimed the renaming would not be confusing and > painful. Sometimes we have to do painful things because they're the > right thing to do. I think everyone realizes a rename would suck the > big one. That's why I'm approaching it cautiou

Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)

Hi again, Martin Pitt [2005-06-14 23:53 +0200]: > The basic idea of the new cluster system was to have the complete > information about a cluster's files in > /etc/postgresql//. That includes the location of the > log files and the data directory, which are configured using these > symlinks to the

Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Roger Leigh wrote: > >> That's true, but for the majority of code, which just uses existing >> GtkObjects, conversion is no much more involved than >> search-and-replace. Plus, if you d

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 15:12 -0400, Eric Dorland escribió: > [...] > > > Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to in the > > > first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is not allowed > > > to call it moz

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 16:45 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães escribió: > > > Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to > > > in the first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is > > > not allowed to call it

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 15:35 -0400, Eric Dorland escribió: > > > We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their > > trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a > > deal that is Debian specific to a

Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)

Hi! Erik Steffl [2005-06-12 16:25 -0700]: > why is there a link to logs in /etc? > > /etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log is a link to > /var/log/postgresql/postgresql-7.4-main.log The basic idea of the new cluster system was to have the complete information about a cluster's files in /etc/postgres

Re: C++ ABI change -- freezing unstable for new C++ library packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:34:31PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 09 juin 2005 à 02:13 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit : > > For etch we will update the toolchain (glibc, binutils, > > linux-kernel-headers, gcc) again. Some updates look easy, other will > > have a bigger impact on package

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 15:35 -0400, Eric Dorland escribió: > We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their > trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a > deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we > accept such a deal as a pro

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 21:02 +0200, Josselin Mouette escribió: > Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 20:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > On Jun 14, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The MPL has much worse than the choice of venue: the "keep the source > > > online" clause, which we (

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 16:45 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães escribió: > > Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to > > in the first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is > > not allowed to call it mozilla-firefox. If we call it > > debian-firefox then downs

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 15:12 -0400, Eric Dorland escribió: [...] > > Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to in the > > first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is not allowed > > to call it mozilla-firefox. If we call it debian-firefox then downstream > >

Re: C++ ABI change -- freezing unstable for new C++ library packages

* Josselin Mouette: > I maintain a package (hdf5) which contains a pure C library and a C++ > interface. However, I'm pretty sure the C++ library isn't used by > packages depending on it. In this case, is it necessary for the library > to be renamed? Is it reasonable to expect that users compile

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:14:45PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > >> (1) LSB -- which Debian's policy vows to follow -- mandates the >> default differentiated runlevels. > > No. Please read >

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Humberto Massa Guimarães ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their > > trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a > > deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we > > accept such a deal as a pro

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:47:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:01:58 +0200, Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > _Why_ did you not create you own run level schema, BTW, if you > have indeed needed them so often? (I haven't felt that itch yet, or I > wo

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

> We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their > trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a > deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we > accept such a deal as a project? Does the DFSG allow us to? Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #

Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:42:46PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > libglade was orphaned 660 days ago and there's a libglade2 package in > the archive. However, there are still 52 packages which depend or > build-depend on the old libglade. Can someone please plan and > coordinate a transition t

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:01:25PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > (3) Substituting diferentiated runlevels by the old, 3-runlevel > > scheme is relatively easy, as it is to create otherwise customized > > runlevels, independently of where one comes from. So, why not? > It is work, and

Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition

Martin Michlmayr wrote: libglade was orphaned 660 days ago and there's a libglade2 package in the archive. However, there are still 52 packages which depend or build-depend on the old libglade. Can someone please plan and coordinate a transition to libglade2 so libglade can eventually be remove

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:14:45PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > Maybe I can shed some light on this > ** Manoj Srivastava :: > > > That common is common enough? > > Not really. There is nothing to indicate that how you > > fashioned your run levels would make sense fo

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

> Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to > in the first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is > not allowed to call it mozilla-firefox. If we call it > debian-firefox then downstream is still not allowed (under the > same conditions) to call it mozilla-firef

Re: C++ ABI change -- freezing unstable for new C++ library packa ges

> I maintain a package (hdf5) which contains a pure C library and a C++ > interface. However, I'm pretty sure the C++ library isn't used by > packages depending on it. In this case, is it necessary for > the library to be renamed? What about third-party software that is not part of Debian and dep

Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Roger Leigh wrote: That's true, but for the majority of code, which just uses existing GtkObjects, conversion is no much more involved than search-and-replace. Plus, if you don't bother with the full conversion, there's quite a lot of compatibility functions to make things

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

** Marco :: > > The MPL has much worse than the choice of venue: the "keep the source > > online" clause, which we (and most other distributors) are violating. > I do not believe that this makes it non-free, but I encourage the > ftpmasters to investigate if our infrastructure can support such a >

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Cesar Martinez Izquierdo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > El Martes 14 Junio 2005 18:54, Humberto Massa Guimarães escribió: > > > Firefox is free software, and DFSG-compliant: "The license may > > > require derived works to carry a different name or version number > > > from the original software." (

Re: C++ ABI change -- freezing unstable for new C++ library packages

Le jeudi 09 juin 2005 à 02:13 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit : > For etch we will update the toolchain (glibc, binutils, > linux-kernel-headers, gcc) again. Some updates look easy, other will > have a bigger impact on packages. One aspect of the toolchain update > is the change of the C++ ABI from

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> If we drop their products, we issue a PR explaining why we dropped > >> them. Just like we're about to do with the GFDL'ed docs. > > > > And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatib

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tuesday 14 June 2005 16.20, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > > * Towns :: > > > > Does calling it "firefox" or "thunderbird" hurt "free software"? > > > > At first, no. But it *does* hurt our users. Why? Because they are > > confident that getti

Re: Support for PPPoa

On Jun 14, "McDonald, John (oper)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has there been any further development for PPPoA? It has been fully supported for about two years. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Arthur de Jong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 19:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need > > > to look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take > >

Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-14 13:48]: >>> libglade2 is the GTK2 version of libglade, so it would have to be a >>> GTK->GTK2 transition. >>

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird > >> from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work > >> with the MoFo. > > > > Don't be so militant. Firefox is cl

Re: Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)

> "humberto" == Humberto Massa Guimaraes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: humberto> IMHO, there is a series of (serious) problems in such a humberto> plan, such as: humberto> * testing and unstable are not installable by humberto> non-tech-folk, all the time, really. There can be t

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tuesday 14 June 2005 18.21, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

Adrian von Bidder writes: > The people you probably mean when you write "admin" (with the quotes) > usually, in my experience, go into blank-stare-mode when I mention the > word 'runlevel' or even 'command line'. There are many who have a primitive notion of what runlevels are and how to use them

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 20:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > On Jun 14, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The MPL has much worse than the choice of venue: the "keep the source > > online" clause, which we (and most other distributors) are violating. > I do not believe that this ma

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:38:58PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > When did > > this Project stop being militant ? > This projects /started/ being militant, it happened about two years ago. Two? Try ten. Actually, we're not all *that* militant. we still have non-free. But that was a flamewar fo

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 19:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need > > to look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take > > any package in main, modify it, and further redistri

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote: > Eric Dorland wrote: > >Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use > >the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a > >violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. > > "Our priorities are our users and f

Support for PPPoa

I found this posting on http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/10/ New Experimental PPP Package. Russell Coker announced that he has made available a new experimental PPP package. among other things, it includes Brian May's dialer script. Russell is currently not in a position to test the package

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Jun 14, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The MPL has much worse than the choice of venue: the "keep the source > online" clause, which we (and most other distributors) are violating. I do not believe that this makes it non-free, but I encourage the ftpmasters to investigate if our

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

> With this reasoning, firefox must go to non-free -- because everything > in main is guaranteed to be freely distributable by anyone, anywhere. With modifications, inclusive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Jun 14, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eh ? So why are we removing *all* the GFDLed docs, then ? Because we are collectively morons. (Actually we have not done this yet, and it's not obvious that we will, so I still hold some hope.) > When did > this Project stop being militant ?

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So, in this paragraph you are basically stating that we *should* >> rename firefox to save them from such burden. > > No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save our *direct* users from such > burden. A lot of people would get greatly co

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

** Matthew Garrett :: > Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is it? I seemed to recall that the MPL contained a > > choice-of-venue clause, and that -legal deemed choice-of-venue > > as non-free, because imposes a burden on the licensee in case of > > litigation. > > "-legal

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 15:06 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães a écrit : > But this is a moot point for the time being, because I'm told that > Debian distributes mozilla under the MPL (and I don't have the MPL > text in hand), even if the MPL contains a choice-of-venue clause (and > *I*, personally

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

> Our users have permission to modify it and further redistribute it *as > long as they change the name*. That's a limitation we're willing to > accept for ourselves - why should it not be free enough for our users? If we are willing to accept it for ourselves, then we should accept it for oursel

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird >> from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work >> with the MoFo. > > Don't be so militant. Firefox is clearly a popular and useful > program. There's no reason t

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it? I seemed to recall that the MPL contained a choice-of-venue > clause, and that -legal deemed choice-of-venue as non-free, because > imposes a burden on the licensee in case of litigation. "-legal decided" is not a terribly meaningful ph

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Right. We don't like it, but we think it's free. > > We don't like it, and, as a compromise, we accept it when it's not > possible to do otherwise; it's a bit different from considering it > free. The DFSG sp

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need > to look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take > any package in main, modify it, and further redistribute it? If yes, > then the package can remain in main

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > /usr/share/doc/mozilla-firefox/copyright would seem to indicate Debian > distributes Firefox under the MPL. We have no choice at the moment. Not all of the tree has been relicensed under the GPL as well. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UN

Re: mail clients and threading... (was: Re: And now for something completely different... etch!)

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:06:07PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Tuesday 14 June 2005 19.14, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > [...] > > Hmmm. Is it just my kmail, or does your mailer produce strange (or no?) > In-Reply-To headers? It's not just you. > All your posts I saw (and none o

RE: And now for something completely different... etch!

** Manoj Srivastava :: > > (4) It *does* generate an unnecessary difference between Debian and > > *all* *other* distros, with no reasonable motive at all. > > We differ on what we considered reasonable. But not *one* reasonable motive for differing was cited in this whole thread. So, r

mail clients and threading... (was: Re: And now for something completely different... etch!)

On Tuesday 14 June 2005 19.14, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: [...] Hmmm. Is it just my kmail, or does your mailer produce strange (or no?) In-Reply-To headers? All your posts I saw (and none others afaict) appeared to be in reply to some completely irrelevant other message in the same threa

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:14:45 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Maybe I can shed some light on this > ** Manoj Srivastava :: >> > That common is common enough? >> >> Not really. There is nothing to indicate that how you fashioned >> your run levels would make sense for

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

> Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal. Sorry John, but this is BS. The text of the GPL#6 says: "You may not impose *any* further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." This *does* include trademark restrictions. But this is a moot point for t

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (This is a compromise. The Debian Project encourages all authors to >> not restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) >> >> Says it all. > > Right. We don't like it, but we think it's free. We don't like it, and, as a compromise,

Re: Bug#313569: ITP: LinuxTaRT -- "The Automatic Random Tagline", a versatile, fast and feature-rich email signature generator

On Tuesday 14 June 2005 14.24, Colin Tuckley wrote: > TaRT features include random > taglines, optional daemon functionality, display of current date, custom > layout of signature, and "special date" tagline text. The command line > syntax is simple and well explained. LinuxTaRT is designed to be r

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If we drop their products, we issue a PR explaining why we dropped >> them. Just like we're about to do with the GFDL'ed docs. > > And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web > browser, not without Mozilla itself. There's

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Humberto Massa Guimarães writes: > But is non-rebranded Firefox *really* distributable by us under GPL#6, > "no further restrictions"? Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Tuesday 14 June 2005 16.20, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > * Towns :: > > Does calling it "firefox" or "thunderbird" hurt "free software"? > > At first, no. But it *does* hurt our users. Why? Because they are > confident that getting something from the Debian mirror, modifying > it and re-di

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

> Yes, it's not nice, it's crap, but it's still entirely > possible within the > (pseudo-)legal framewark Debian gives itself. Isn't Debian point to be less crap? Yeah, I even agree it's possible within Debian's "laws", but should it be done? I don't think so. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIB

Re: Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)

** Otavio Salvador :: > > "humberto" == Humberto Massa Guimaraes > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > humberto> IMHO, there is a series of (serious) problems in such a > humberto> plan, such as: > > humberto> * testing and unstable are not installable by > humberto> non-tech-folk, all the time

Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > isn't the reasonable interpretation of FHS that only what is supposed > to be in a particular directory is supposed to be there, i.e. that ONL:Y > static config files should be in /etc tree? please change the /etc/rc*.d/ and /etc/alternatives/ semant

Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > That also means the program is looking for its logfiles under /etc by > default, which FHS-compliant software is not supposed to do. You mean it is allowed to do read log < /etc/app/log; cat $log/logfile.txt and it is not allowed to do: cat /etc/app/

Re: links to logs in /etc? (/etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > ok, that's gotta be invalid argument since this could be argued for > ANY file so you would end up with links to EVERYTHING in /etc, so that > program would know where to find libraries, binaries, images, web pages > (hey! we need a way to store URLs

Re: New Nokia device is Debian-based?

Stephen Birch wrote: > On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 05:02 -0500, Christian Perrier wrote: > > Quoting David Weinehall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > > Indeed. The Nokia OSSO (Open Source Software Operations) that work on > > > this product consists of several DD's (myself being one), plus at least > > > o

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Tuesday 14 June 2005 18.21, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of > > >> behaviour as free? > > > > > >

Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s

> I didn't say anything about manpages, did I? Your phrase was directly after Sergey's question of where should he put the manpages. Apropos, Sergey, your argument about manpages going in -data is sound, provided -bin REALLY Depends: on -data. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] w

Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:08:37PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: > > Who moved binary (_architecture_ dependent binary) to -data > > package? Basically you don't have to split package if there are > > Since when are manpages architecture dependent binaries? I didn't say anything about m

RE: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

** Sebastian Ley :: > Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 16:20 schrieb Humberto Massa Guimarães: > > > > Does calling it "firefox" or "thunderbird" hurt "free software"? > > > > At first, no. But it *does* hurt our users. Why? Because they are > > confident that getting something from the Debian mirror,

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Tuesday 14 June 2005 08.00, Eric Dorland wrote: > 3. Accept MoFo's offer of Debian-specific trademark usage. > I don't > believe #3 is acceptable under the DFSG. IMHO this *trademark* license corresponds quite exactly to the *copyright* license that require renaming on change, which seems to

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 16:20 schrieb Humberto Massa Guimarães: > > Does calling it "firefox" or "thunderbird" hurt "free software"? > > At first, no. But it *does* hurt our users. Why? Because they are > confident that getting something from the Debian mirror, modifying > it and re-distributin

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

Maybe I can shed some light on this ** Manoj Srivastava :: > > That common is common enough? > > Not really. There is nothing to indicate that how you > fashioned your run levels would make sense for, say, me. > People whoi really want tailored run-levels often have >

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Jun 14, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under > > > the terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free. > > > > This is, uh, debated. > Is i

Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:30:07 +0100, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > That's sadly totally untrue. Either you mean "use all the source in > the archive with the DPKG-DEV available in stable" -- or it was > utterly violated by all the packages in the sarge period that used > (e.g.)

  1   2   >