oing to upload 0.10.1-1.0PR1 to unstable
unless someone come up with compelling reasons not to. If I can't get
it into sarge then I will certainly make a 0.9.3 release to address
it's issues.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C
nux was why sf went to
Fedora, what makes you think so?
--
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++
lent work on it right now, but
there will be some tweaks to the extension manager that may require
locale and extensions packagers to make a few changes (don't worry, if
anything you should have to remove things). Stay tuned.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jab
mozilla supports the -UIlocale and
> -contentLocale we can use on firefox to do the trick...
Yes it does, that's where I stole the idea/code from :)
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8EC
es why bother? And I can't think of any.
--
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-
* William Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 09:55:42PM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > And what would the advantage be over using mozilla? The gecko engine
> > is the same, in fact mozilla tends to have a newer gecko engine than
> > firefox. I mean th
my link suggest apparently there exists an rpm for
> gtkmozembed-firefox so somebody else at least is doing it
>
>
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-BEGIN GEEK CODE B
* William Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 12:08:03PM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * William Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 08:44:05AM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > > > mozilla-dev depends on mo
e of hardcore pictures is obviously not acceptable,
[snip]
It is not at all obvious in fact. The bible and the anarchist FAQ have
probably caused more direct damage to the world. Please don't project
your morality on the project.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabb
backups should be stored/kept. For example it's
> possible
> to keep the daily snapshots of the last 14 days, but also keep one
> snapshot per month of the last 12 months. The used network bandwidth can
> also be limited to avoid affecting production systems.
--
Eric Dorland <[
ete tarball has been extracted).
Uhh, who cares? dh_movefiles has been superseded by dh_install.
--
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
GC
* Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
> > * Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> dh_movefiles internally uses tar to move file contents. I'm not sure why
> >> it doe
y moves between systems
> where my userid might differ?
>
> o Other issues?
>
> It would be very interesting to hear how others manage this...
>
> Kind regards,
> David
>
>
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/234134
>
>
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED
has CDBS packages should try rebuilding them, and
> if you can patch the brokenness, submit the patch to bug 342892.
Phew. Thanks for dropping this note. The package I was working on
suddenly stopped building yesterday and I'd thought I'd lost my mind.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL P
7;s no fun creating new top-level directories, but moving it
under /lib doesn't really make sense. It more surprising and less
consistent to have it under /lib.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61
hing called nvi instead of vim by default, they
shake their heads and disbelief and next words out of their mouths
either make fun of Debian, or make fun of me (*snif*).
Now we don't necessarily have to pander to these people, but this
change is the sort of thing that will help the change
of
> launchpad which is better. Again, I think it would do a good job keeping
> everything organized an efficient.
> Cheers,
> Frans
AFAIK Launchpad is not free software, so it's not going to hap
systems with Hebrew users but with non-Hebrew default locale.
> .
> BiDi options are based on the user's locale. This package sets Firefox
> bidi.browser.ui option to true.
This seems a crazy thing to have an entire package for. Let's see if
we can come up with a better solution.
otify you through the BTS and/or the bugs were open
for less than a week, then let the chastisement commence!
--
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
the line
> "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge ./"
>
> to /etc/apt/source.list .
This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTE
people sent in a vote.
> Extremists are a minority but a very lound minority as usual which makes
> them often win.
>
> Dictorship of Minorities shall be opposed.
If I minority are the only ones that vote, they get to set the
direction of the project. No sense bitching about that, j
ceive any security support upstream, and neither the maintainer
> or the security team are in a position to backport all fixes and correcte
> all stuff in the older versions. (upstream does only support the most
> recent version, which will be different about one month after the sarge
>
creation
> of the virtual packages mentioned in the policy. I will wait a
> few days before doing any more steps in this regard.
Been a while since I've done anything Schemey, but this looks like a
good proposal.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber:
ge -timeout 10 `fan` listed in a menu
> > > file does not exist.
>
> Those seem pretty legitimate, although there's an argument to be made
> that menu should provide a syntax for this type of status display, so
> individual apps don't have to do it by hand. (Som
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
> bad thing. You should just run automake and/or autoconf on the
> unpacked source and ship i
* Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:49:22PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> > > bad ideas. It makes the bu
* Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:40:26PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> >
> > I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> > bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
>
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland
>
> [Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below]
>
> | I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always
> | a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
> | generally a
* Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > > Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible
> > > to change any part of th
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:30:56AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
> > > relevant auto* be in
* Philipp Kern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project
> > I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools.
>
>
I send
> this email, asking whether or not it would be acceptable for me to
> hijack the abandoned libhtml-mason-perl package.
>
> Any feedback/advise would be appreciated.
I'm pretty interested in this package as well, and I'm willing to
sponsor you.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL
how Ubuntu is handling this (not to fan the flames, just to
get a different perspective).
--
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
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 spiri
ity patch or fix a bug
> > crosses the border. It's not like if we were forking their codebase.
>
> We have permission to apply security patches and fix bugs without
> changing the name.
We (as in Debian) may have the permission, but that permission does
not flow downstream.
iginal Message
> Subject: Re: Firefox Trademark Issues
> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:15:27 +0100
> From: Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: mozilla.org
> To: Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Eri
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland:
>
> > 1. Completely ignore their Trademark Policy document and let MoFo come
> > to us if they're not happy with our use of the marks.
>
> This is the policy we have adopted with PHP, Apache and
> si
DFSG#4: [in terms of
> distributing software,] Debian will not accept or exercise rights which
> cannot be granted to Debian's users.
Proposed extension? Is this actually been on the table before?
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
102
* 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.
>
> "
* 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:
* 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 t
efox seems to me like a good idea in the first
> place)
The difference is we have perhaps compromised our principles to keep
calling it Firefox.
BTW, don't be fooled into thinking we'll be able to call it
debian-firefox. If we have to rename it will not be able to include
the string &
it? I
don't think #4 should be used to bypass another one of the guidelines.
Now in the Mozilla case we're not talking about software licenses,
we're talking about trademarks, which makes things murkier. But the
principles should still apply. We're being offered a Debian specifi
gt; And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web
> > browser, not without Mozilla itself.
>
> There's still Galeon and a couple of others, based on Gecko. Should be
> enough.
Julien, I'm not going to remove Firefox from the distro over this
issue. Let it go, it
task easier to derived distributions.
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 t
s incorrect.
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?
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 993
* 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
> > de
must call it (for instance)
> > IceWeasel, and yes, any person downstream from us can call it
> > anything but Firefox or Mozilla or Mozilla Firefox.
>
> BTW, we should remove any gecko based browser too. After all they
> depend in MOZILLA-browser. Not only firefox is going to b
* 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
* 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 thi
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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
> > > distrib
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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 t
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:10:06AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > Come on, that can't possibl
mment about this issue. I *hate*
> legal discussions, licenses nitpicking and haircutting. I understand
> that some people enjoy this and I even understand we need some people
> to do so. But I feel there are enough *real* issues and we probably
> should not begin to invent new one
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal
> > > trademarks. If a trademark l
discussion.
Now, that that is out of the way, can we call it Firefox?
--
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+++
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:11PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > People seem to be using DFSG 4 as a justification for keeping the
> > name, but I believe that is flawed. DFSG 4 allows for a license to say
> > "if you meet
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 15:27 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
> > > > And *then* Debian will be left without a mozilla-compatible web
> > > > browser, not without Mozilla itself.
> > >
> > > There's s
, because if it did, the
> trademark's owner would lose his or her trademark by trying to abide by
> our policy. Thus, it is my opinion that it should not apply.
This simply isn't true. There are examples of OSS projects granting
trademarks based on test suites and specifications
the past (TrustedDebian -> Adamantix)
>
> You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you
> either rename it to something else or get permission to call it firefox.
> Doesn't sound non-free to me.
Please explain to me why it's alright to get special p
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Where possible, sure. But "principles" doesn't mean "the rules should be
> > > exactl
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If we accept it, we've made a Debian-specific deal to distribute that
> > software. Is that acceptable? I don't believe it is.
>
> What I've heard from the Mozi
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:23:19PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > The MoFo has made no statement that they would grant a trademark
> > license to anyone would adhered to the same standards as Debian. If
> > this were true (and hop
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * 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 tou
What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian packages
don't use any of the trademarked images and logos?
> 1: As I'm sure you're aware, it's primarily a nod to TeX et al. and a
> compromise so TeX could be distributed.
> 2: Extra bonus points to whoever
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > All of MoFo trademarks that were not being used in a manner
> > > consistent with trademark law[2] would have to be expunged from
&g
when they were
> modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a
> license.
That is correct, but (correct me if I'm wrong Gerv), but "change"
would include such things as recompiling it.
> Did I get the wrong end of the stick?
--
Eric Dorland <
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 01:03 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
> > > The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via Gervase in
> > > this long running debate which he has continued to follow despite the
> > >
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > Indeed the most pragmatic thing to d
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:50:44PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > > > > Does the o
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:23:39PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROT
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Jun 16, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to
> > determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. Let me try
> Go
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > > All of
l's
> investigation into this matter, yes. There were several others, too.
Sorry Andrew, which investigation are you referring to? Which other
outcomes? You've got some context there I'm not getting.
> Oddly enough, I *do* know what happened.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PRO
* Raphaël Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 14:45 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit :
> > I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to
> > determine is if we should use the marks within Debian.
>
>
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Well I don't think DFSG #4 says the rename has to be easy, it just
> > has to be possible.
>
> Yes. However, the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming,
> no
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote:
> > > > Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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
> >>
ey 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 "
* Dale C. Scheetz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:16:18 -0400
> Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> >
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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
* Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 6/17/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Exactly. If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our
> > > users.
> > > And i
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland writes:
> > If we don't need the "arrangement", why exactly would we accept it
> > anyway?
>
> Because they want it and it costs us nothing to give it to them. They are
> our friends. Let's acc
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland writes:
> > We may be their friends, but that shouldn't give us special privileges.
>
> If what we are doing does not actually infringe their trademark we would
> not be getting any special privileges.
What we are d
s that I found in BR case law were to
> > *advertising* and *misrepresenting* something as being from the wrong
> > origin.
>
> Same in the US.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
* Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 6/19/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I wouldn't say "accept" it, I would say "acknowledge" the safety zone
> > >
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I wrote:
> > If what we are doing does not actually infringe their trademark we would
> > not be getting any special privileges.
>
> Eric Dorland writes:
> > What we are doing already is against their trademark policy.
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> I'd certainly
>
be interested in trying to develop some sort of policy for Debian
regarding trademarks. I'm not sure how much weight it could carry, but
at least if people like the ideas.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROT
the issue up again if I see it happening.
Hopefully this will make everyone happy (or at least equally unhappy),
but I think it is the best compromise for the time being, until at
least better policies are worked out with regard to trademarks.
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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&quo
* Shachar Shemesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I am not a lawyer.
>
> I am a consultant trying to understand the world he lives in, and as
> such, studied the applicable law a little.
>
> Eric Dorland wrote:
>
> >So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offe
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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 conf
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:48:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> [...]
> > So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla
> > Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel
> &
mably" isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they
would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone,
based on the "quality" criteria that is right now only known to the
MoFo. Debian shouldn't be encouraging the use of trademarks that are
not eq
* Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> hoi :)
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:18:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific
> > agreement to call Firefox "Firefox".
>
> sure, and the consensus se
rer to
> whoever will make the decision. Btw, I support your calling to the DPL, and
> I
> hope he accepts to make the decision, now that everybody had the
> opportunity to
> express their view.
Again, this discussion is less about the freeness of the software and
more about what kin
ishable issues -- one is a presentation format for distribution,
> the other is a means for the work to identify itself.
My problem with it is DFSG 8. If we accept a trademark license, we're
attaching additional rights to the program that are Debian-specific. I
understand that the DFSG wer
s against upstream. I really don't
> understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to
> manage your patches when you could use a real VC tool that does it
> better?
Amen to that. (although I use svn)
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, J
s. Levels consist of
> little
> platforms connected by ladders, so you can go up and down or find cover
> if needed.
Is this one better or worse than pangzero?
--
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
