Simon Josefsson wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments
A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how
those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a
DFSG-free licence (presumably in parallel to the IETF one) - perhaps
some sample boilerpl
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P
Perhaps I shouldn't have made that flippant comment.
What do you mean you can't? You most certainly can, "just" rewrit
Bill Allombert wrote:
1) The name of the package (.deb file if you want). This cannot be
changed with much disruption. Does MoFo claims trademark right on
firefox or mozilla-firefox when used as package name ?
2) files shipped in pathname including the string mozilla-firefox or
firefox, e.g. /us
Simon Huggins wrote:
Do you have a few ideas off the top of your head now of definite things
that cannot be touched?
Everything's subject to negotiation and discussion - see, for example,
my change in position on the SPI cert after consultation within the
project. But here's an attempt to ans
Cameron Patrick wrote:
I'm curious as to how this would apply to Debian-derived distributions
which either (a) don't change the Firefox/Thunderbird packages, or (b)
change them in some trivial way. Would someone taking the packages
unchanged from Debian be required to either ask MoFo for a trade
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the
volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking
at a conference in Wolverhampton.
The volume has been pretty light c
Simon Huggins wrote:
That's unfair. I would have summarised more as "there's no problem
doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes". I don't
want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change of code he has to
run to Gervase and ask nicely. (note that's not quite what's happ
Eric Dorland wrote:
The thread is petering out
Only because there's only one of me, and I'm too busy to deal with the
volume! It's currently ten to midnight and I just got back from speaking
at a conference in Wolverhampton.
Some very smart developers have come forward to say that trademar
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most
prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as "Debian" (or
"official Debian", or whatever it is you guys use). :-)
When I sa
Eric Dorland wrote:
But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights
that the user don't have.
Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most
prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as "Debian" (or
"official Debian", or whatever it is you g
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages
firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as
long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were
modified that they potential
John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Sack writes:
In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product
name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it
is used in the help menu, the about box, the package-name and the window
title bar.
I'm not convinced t
Simon Huggins wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the
CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our
ca-certificates package. However I can't
Alexander Sack wrote:
I think, what some (or a certain amount of) project members complain about, is
the absense of objective, written criteria. Those criteria should somehow define
which criteria X has to satisfy in order to get judged competent.
Such criteria are very hard to define. To show
Eric Dorland wrote:
Using the logo is not possible, as it is not licensed under a free
license.
Yes, sorry - I'd forgotten.
This agreement is not evil, but internally we have to work out whether
we can make this sort of agreement under the DFSG. If you came back
with something non-Debian spe
Alexander Sack wrote:
Sadly, a good example that this is true to some extent, is that the MF
apparently has no high priority to care about distributors, when it comes to
security issues. AFAIK, we cannot get access to confidential security reports in
order to prepare a fix in a timely manner.
Alexander Sack wrote:
Is the brand name 'Firefox' or 'Mozilla Firefox'? I remember that this whole
discussion started because we should remove the Mozilla prefix from the software
and package name?
That's not quite right. Removing the "Mozilla" prefix was one of the
issues that came up in the
hat's
what some packages whose licenses have name-change clauses say.
Gerv
Previous email to Eric:
Original Message
Subject: Re: Firefox Trademark Issues
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:15:27 +0100
From: Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: mozilla.
18 matches
Mail list logo
