[Arm-netbook] How much to design A20 board?

[Philip Hands]

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:
>>>
>>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project
>>
>> 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
>> patch.
>
>  so mozilla have a total lack of trust of the debian team.

No.

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:

  https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/open-source-hardware

  "The Hardware project is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License."

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa

  "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):

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  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...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20150909/4695270e/attachment.sig>