Bug#861124: ITP: elpa-writeroom-mode -- distraction-free writing for Emacs
- To: Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>
- Cc: 861124@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#861124: ITP: elpa-writeroom-mode -- distraction-free writing for Emacs
- From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 15:17:05 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87tvmoj5n2.fsf@angela.anarc.at>
- Reply-to: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>, 861124@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20170609003045.GA6159@DigitalMercury.dynalias.net>
- References: <149306455311.15518.8734527183247011467.reportbug@curie.anarc.at> <20170425003720.GA1914@DigitalMercury.dynalias.net> <87d1c066c7.fsf@curie.anarc.at> <20170425150557.qm4vfn6k2okkppav@navis> <87r30g4ch0.fsf@curie.anarc.at> <20170427011443.GA27250@DigitalMercury.dynalias.net> <871sse1vt0.fsf@curie.anarc.at> <20170511150421.GA19075@DigitalMercury.dynalias.net> <20170517145700.GB29778@DigitalMercury.dynalias.net> <87efuui37t.fsf@curie.anarc.at> <20170609003045.GA6159@DigitalMercury.dynalias.net> <149306455311.15518.8734527183247011467.reportbug@curie.anarc.at>
On 2017-06-08 20:30:45, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 05:23:02PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2017-05-17 10:57:00, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> > Control: block -1 by 861772
>> >
>> > Please do not upload this package yet. I'm blocking this RFP with an
>> > RFS I filed, and have tagged it moreinfo while I investigate the
>> > severity of a possible trademark infringement issue. I expect that to
>> > be solved quickly, hopefully before you get back.
>>
>> Any news here?
>
> My end of May and beginning of June were unexpectedly busy/fun, and I
> was slow to get the process going. At present I'm waiting to replies
> to these inquiries.
On 2017-09-28 09:45:00, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Yes, I asked a fairly generic question somewhere on OFTC, then
> privately contacted upstream, and got in contact with debian-legal
> with upstream's consent. IIRC they recommended upstream rename as the
> easiest course of action (I forget if that was public or private), and
> provided an alternative that requires a bit of work (and less
> certainty). What's at stake? As I understand it, potential
> (American) lawyer fees, and/or headaches of needing to pull things
> offline in a hurry.
>
> Upstream recently send me an email, and is busy with IRL stuff. I
> remain optimistic this will be resolved this fall.
Hi!
Pinging again here... Did you get any news from upstream?
You mentioned a discussion with debian-legal... I looked (briefly) in
the archives and didn't find a trace of this in the mailing list. Can we
get a better idea of what the legal issue is in general? You mention
trademark infringement, which trademark?
What's our next step here?
Or did you switch to olivetti mode? :)
A.
--
Either you're with us or you're with the terrorist state.
Reply to: