Изпечатай

[growchie]

Май нещата са на път да се превърнат в сапунен сеиал. Днес в пощенските списъци на федора се появи следното

Цитат

On 9/28/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > "If you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of > > the > > branding." > > > > We can't use the rest of the branding, because it's non-free. > > > > So is the Debian and Fedora's branding. The branding is part of the > trademarks. It cannot be free or it becomes diluted and you lose the > trademark. Strict enforcement is *required by law*. I'm not sure what we are arguing. Here's my logic: 1. Firefox artwork has a non-free license (not DFSG compliant). 2. Firefox trademark name MUST be used in conjunction with the logo. 3. If Fedora is to follow similar guidelines as Debian (which it claims), then 1 and 2 conflict. Moreover, I am also saying that: 1. Software released under the name "Firefox" has very strict restrictions about the patches that may or may not be applied to it. Any patch that isn't approved by MozCo cannot be applied to Firefox. 2. I consider this to be against the spirit of Fedora. Fedora is about "freedom" and "all patches must be approved by Mozilla Corporation" is not freedom. 3. MozCo provides a simple way around it by offering a compile-time flag that removes all branding, so repackagers can have complete freedom about the patches that they apply and don't apply to their software. 4. Debian *IS* doing that, and I'm arguing that we should follow suit. Regards, -- Konstantin Ryabitsev Montr&#233;al, Qu&#233;bec

Цитат

Eric Dorland wrote: > > Copyrights and trademarks are different things. Yes. They are but in this case they are closely interlinked.  The problem with the > Firefox logo is that it has a non-DFSG-free copyright license, not > necessarily the trademark license. No one has explained to me > adequately why you can't have a free copyright license but a more > restrictive trademark one. This is a thorny issue we have been discussing for a while in Fedora too.  See https://www.redhat.com/archive....0.html. There doesnt seem to be any easy answers around this. Putting the logo under a Free software license would mean other people can create derivatives of Fedora, add whatever junk they want and use the Fedora logo in that derivative distribution. We want to avoid that. They are free to do derivatives of course but we dont want them to use the Fedora trademark name and brand. > > The Debian branding being non-free is considered a bug and proposals > are being put forward to fix it, and make us stop looking slightly > hypocritical. I wonder how Debian is planning to avoid the above problem. Rahul

Цитат

On 9/28/06, Konstantin Ryabitsev <icon@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > 1. Software released under the name "Firefox" has very strict > restrictions about the patches that may or may not be applied to it. > Any patch that isn't approved by MozCo cannot be applied to Firefox. This is not as black and white an issue as say the situation with pine. As a strict interpretation of the precepts that outline what Fedora can include, it's not clear to me that its an undue burden to downstream distributors of Fedora to require them to change the name and the branding of firefox in their distribution if they patch the codebase without approval.  The point is they are are absolutely free to change the codebase all they have to do is change the application naming and branding when they make those codebase changes.  I do not believe that is is overburdensom to require people to make additional branding and naming changes as a condition on continued usage of trademarks. We have to be very very clear on this... copyright and trademarks are distinctly different. While I make have OSI approved copyright licensee to modify the codebase as I see fit as an enduser or a downstream distribution.. restrictions on the use of the trademarks is a completely seperate issue that copyright does not cover.  What we are talking about here with firefox is trademark restrictions, there isn't a single additional copyright restriction being applied to the codebase... even the artwork. I can in fact take the original artwork and modify it to my hearts content under the available copyright license. What I can not do is use a modified version of that artwork in a way that infringes on the established trademarks, nor can I create a distinctly new original peice of artwork that infringes on the established trademarks. What is afforded me under copyright still meets the OSI definition. My actions are restricted by trademark regardless of whether the material is derived or an entirely original creation.. full stop. > 2. I consider this to be against the spirit of Fedora. Fedora is about > "freedom" and "all patches must be approved by Mozilla Corporation" is > not freedom. I will however agree with this that the 'all patches must be approved' is overburdensome for the Fedora project itself.  If this were the policy for all projects that Fedora integrates into a distribution, would such a policy allow the Fedora maintainers to work effectively? I think not. On a particular case by case, package by package basis, such a policy from upstream may or may not be acceptable to the package maintainer who has to be shackled by it.  Some of us like being tied up and being told we are naughty. Maybe the current firefox maintainer is one of those people, I can't say. Fedora already has a mission to work with upstream as much as possible, so such strong arm tactics by upstream to compel cooperation may never have much in the way of teeth with regard to Fedora packages as long as the maintainers stay commit to the upstream,upstream, upstream mantra. However I would much rather see the Fedora project avoid taking advantage of such special permission trademark clauses so that we continue to have the option to have our own software maintainers to make short-term decisions in the best interest of this project regardless of the occasional political, economic, or drug induced shifts in the focus of upstream. I don't care how closely we work with upstream, there will be impedence mismatches at points in that journey and special relationship clauses will only serve as a point of contention in project relationships when we have to work through disagreements. I personally do not value the firefox or any projects naming or branding as much as I value the ability of this project's developers to think and act in the best interests of this project's userbase. -jef"Here's the irony.. wasn't it firefox that had to go through a couple of iterations in own branding just to find a name that doesn't infringe on another's mark?  Wasn't it called phoenix at one point.... the gods of irony are pleased."spaleta

Цитат

On 9/28/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > > It's definitely late for such change to happen in the FC6 timeframe, > > but we have to look further, and if we are to stick to the motto of > > providing a distribution that is "free to infinity," then we can't > > continue to ship Firefox under the name that limits what we can and > > cannot do with the software. > > > > Thats not true. Several projects enforce trademark guidelines. They hold > restrictions on the name to ensure that their brand isnt spoiled. That > includes Debian,Fedora and Linux itself. If there is pain in following > the guidelines, you can rename it (see httpd vs apache in Fedora) but > the trademark restriction by itself doesnt make the software non-free or > incompatible with the Fedora objectives. > Suggestions for names: apache -> httpd firefox   -> html-browser seamonkey -> html-suite thunderbird -> html-email sunbird -> html-calender -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

Цитат

Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Suggestions for names: > > > > apache -> httpd > > firefox   -> html-browser web-browser? > > seamonkey -> html-suite web-suite? Though that sounds as stupid as html-suite sounds (no offense intended). > > thunderbird -> html-email Uh, no. It does read and render HTML mails, but it's not an html/httpd client per se. It's a mail reader ... > > sunbird -> html-calender Hmmm. web-calend(a|e)r? Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 München | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC

Цитат

Ralph Angenendt <ralph+fedora <at> strg-alt-entf.org> writes: >> > > seamonkey -> html-suite > > > > web-suite? Though that sounds as stupid as html-suite sounds (no offense > > intended). internet-suite would be better. It doesn't just support the WWW. Similarly, Thunderbird and Sunbird shouldn't have web- (nor html-) in their renamed names.         Kevin Kofler

[gat3way]

Не знам кой им е пуснал мухата, но тази година нещата покрай глупави спорове за лицензии и прочее станаха болна тема.

В същото време Торвалдс и Столман водят забавна дискусия по въпроса има ли смисъл от GPLv3...умопобъркалото се хипи е решило да налага реформираните си наскоро виждания върху проекти с които няма грам общо...тъй както е тръгнало ще си имаме един вид лиценз за ядрото (gpl2), друг за gcc (gpl3), трети за половината демони без които не можем - примерно openssh (BSD) и купчина допълнителни за неща като apache и mozilla.

Не е далеч времето когато законовите глупости при тази операционна система ще надминат като сложност и обем сорса на самия софтуер..

Добре че брат ми ще става адвокат да имам от кой да вземам акъл '>

[growchie]

И накрая M$ ще заключат mbr-то и всички ще отидем по дяволите '>

[gat3way]

Затва предлагам всички да contribute-ват за проекта LinuxBIOS...ще им го върнем тъпкано, ще флашнем всички БИОС-и с напълно функционално линукс ядро  и естествено бози няма да могат да буут-ват