Re: Fwd: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:40:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > >From: Dom Lachowicz
> > >Date: 20 July 2004 22:08:34 BST
> > >To: Andy Korvemaker, abiword-dev@abisource.com
> > >Subject: Re: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?
> [...]
> > >For the record, I've recently acquired the AbiWord trademarks and
> > >whatnot. I haven't had a chance to update the TM information on the
> > >website.
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you very much for shedding some light on this issue!
>
> I have some questions below.
>
> > >To be expressly clear here for any Debian guys that read this message:
> > >
> > >Within reason, I don't care if you use "AbiWord" vs. "AbiWord
> > >Personal." In fact, I'd prefer it if you used "AbiWord."
> > >
> > >Within reason, I don't care if you use the "official" artwork or the
> > >"personal" artwork. In fact, I'd prefer it if you used the "official"
> > >artwork.
> > >
> > >I do begin to care if you use my trademarks to promote other products,
> > >or in ways that disparage my trademarks or products. If you "forked"
> > >AbiWord, you couldn't use the trademarks. But you're clearly not going
> > >to do that. The USPTO has more info and case law on this sort of thing.
> > >
> > >Debian and the other distros are clearly distributing AbiWord, and
> > >providing a beneficial service to the community. Even though Debian's
> > >version might have a few patches against our "mainline" branch, I don't
> > >believe it constitutes a "fork." As such, I think that it is fine (if
> > >not preferable) for you guys to use the official name and artwork in
> > >your distribution.
> > >
> > >So, you have my blessing to call your AbiWord + patches "AbiWord". You
> > >can use the official artwork too.
>
> One of Debian's "freeness" criteria is that licenses not be specific to
> us[1]. The Open Source Initiaive has a similar criterion, which says that
> licenses must not be specific to a "product". To be precise:
>
> 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
>
> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being
> part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted
> from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the
> program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed
> should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with
> the original software distribution.[1]
>
> Debian wants our users to enjoy the same freedoms we do, and we consider
> our users to be -- potentially, anyway -- the "general public".
Huh, i am bluffed here. Not sure i understand the whole issue, but i think we
consider licences of the type :
you may use, modify, distribute, whatever this software as you wish, as long
as you don't call it <foo>.
as free. How is this here different ? Or did i misunderstood or is the
distribution of software at hand here, and not only the name we give it ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: