Re: selfhtml license + trademark violation
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: selfhtml license + trademark violation
- From: Uwe Hermann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:30:29 +0200
- Message-id: <20010905183029.A21750@shusaku>
- In-reply-to: <Rs8MIB.A.Z6E.oLil7@murphy>; from email@example.com on Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:17:48PM +0200
- References: <20010903184946.A3822@shusaku> <20010904174752.A6889@shusaku> <Rs8MIB.A.Z6E.oLil7@murphy>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:17:48PM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
> ¹) I have never heard of a law called "Software License Law". If
> it exists, how can it be that I can't find anything about it on
> the web?
> ²) The latter remark seems superfluous. As I interpret it, it
> implies "publishing" on a commercially oriented web server is
> not intended.
Yes, it sounds like that, but I *guess* that's not how the author
wanted it to sound like...
> ¹³) This seems to be the most dangerous clause. Does Debian even
> check, though packages might contain "nazi ideas" or material
> that is considered illegal and pornographic in some country?
> AFAIK Debian has no such policy, so what happens if there
> actually *are* tittis in Debian???
Well, then we aren't allowed to distribute selfhtml...
> >> Therefore I think selfhtml cannot go into main.
> How could it get in there?
No idea, but according to the changelog it's there since 1997!
Maybe someone should go through the licenses of all Debian packages and
check that they are *really* free...
> > * Contact the upstream author of selfhtml and ask if he
> > allows us to remove those three lines?
> IIRC he gave permission to everyone to remove the lines in
> question. However, I can't find any evidence for that.
I'll ask him about that...
> Maybe you should contact the upstream author anyway, and tell
> him that the classification was [main], but will be corrected to
> [non-free], if the document can stay in Debian at all. It would
> be great if he could review the "license".
I'll contact him and ask what's his stance to this whole issue.
> If there was any violation at all, it was not Selfhtml that has
> violated the trademark but the strange shareware program behind
> the link. However, as the court has decided that "Explorer" is a
> weak name, and "FTP Explorer" is different enough not to violate
> it, there should be no problem anymore.
the judge will announce the decision on September 19, 2001.
I wouldn't yet count on the problem being solved...
> The reason the lawsuit is still going on is that the campaign
> "Freedom for Links", and the Selfhtml author want a decision
> from court, though web page authors are legally resposible for
> the content behind the links they make.
That's what the author wants to, yes, but it doesn't seem the court is
really willing to discuss this matter...
> > * Remove selfhtml from Debian altogether?
> NO! Please try to avoid it! Selfhtml is a really great
> hypertextbook. :o)
ACK. But if it's not legally possible to keep it in Debian we have to
:------------------ Uwe Hermann <firstname.lastname@example.org> ------------------:
| http://htsserver.sourceforge.net -- Holsham Traders |
| http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org -- Unmaintained Free Software |
:---------------------- http://www.hermann-uwe.de ------------------ :wq -: