On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:47:23 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [...] > Thanks Joss for the Cc, as I'm not subscribed to -legal (so please keep > the Cc on replies). Done. > > I've read the thread and I do have some questions for the list. As far > as I can tell, there is no *trademark* violation going on here, simply > because the swirl is no trademark, [...] > However, if > the swirl used in the mentioned website is derived from the Debian > swirl, than we might have here a violation of the DO(pen)UL, [...] > As far as I can tell (IANAL, and before contacting SPI lawyer) what we > should ask Legend PC is then to come into compliance of the license, by > mentioning copyright and permission notices. > > Does that matches the analysis made by other -legal people? As far as I understand it, your analysis matches the ones made by other debian-legal regulars. I have already expressed my own opinion: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/11/msg00060.html so I won't repeat it here. Please note that other messages were added up to the thread, without apparently Cc:ing you. I think this one is especially interesting: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/12/msg00005.html -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp2JjLadEUCU.pgp
Description: PGP signature