[Arm-netbook] How much to design A20 board?
phil at hands.com
Wed Sep 9 22:43:33 BST 2015
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Philip Hands <phil at hands.com> wrote:
>> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> writes:
>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>>> <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>>>> if you're not familiar with or don't clearly understand the
>>>> difference, look up the history behind why the Debian Team renamed
>>>> firefox to "iceweasel".
>>> here you go:
>> That was nothing to do with copyright, nor attribution.
>> The problem is the way that Mozilla enforces its trademark.
>> Mozilla is (fairly reasonably) concerned that people might take one of
>> its trademarked programs, trojan it, and redistribute the result under
>> the name of e.g. Firefox, thus tainting their good name. They therefore
>> reserve the right to specify which code costitutes Firefox, etc. and
>> want sight of any patches that are applied to allow them to determine
>> whether they should withdraw the use of the name from the result of the
> so mozilla have a total lack of trust of the debian team.
Mozilla has a trademark policy designed to deal with abusers.
Debian has a policy that requires any license to _not_ be exclusive to
Debian, because that would cause trouble downstream.
These two things are both reasonable, but sadly incompatible.
> that's the
> debian team who have software libre's interests, user's interests,
> their own long-standing reputation (backed up by GPG-signing) to
> protect, and the mozilla foundation's directors could not see fit to
> trust such reliable and reputable people to look after something as
> critical as security patches.
None of that is relevant.
>> Debian on the other hand wants to be able to apply security patches
>> without needing to ask Mozilla for approval, and more importantly perhaps
>> want not to impose such restrictions on their downstreams.
>> The use of the Ice* names is done to avoid the scenario where a security
>> fix fails to meet with approval, and then the Debian maintainers being
>> faced with the need to do an emergency trademark purge in order to
>> deploy a security fix.
> good for them. sounds like the right decision.
> also sounds very much like i quoted _completely_ the wrong example.
> any other mistakes i made that you can see, phil? :)
Since you ask:
"The Hardware project is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License."
"This is a copyleft free license that is good for ..."
So the olimex boards are under an FSF-approved copyleft license.
I think perhaps you've conflated the word "Attribution" with the
BSD 4-clause license (with its obnoxious "Advertising" clause):
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the arm-netbook