[Mageia-sysadm] Main tasks for the next days

Tue Nov 16 17:45:00 CET 2010

Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 13:57 +0100, Olivier Blin a écrit :
+> Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> writes:
+> 
+> > We all agree that some softwares will need to be cleaned from icons, but
+> > IMHO, most of them don't.
+> 
+> How about the Mandriva brand/name ?
+
+Well, it depend, where exactly should it be cleaned ?
+
+Because I doubt that having the Mandriva word buried somewhere in a perl
+file is "using the Mandriva brand", especially if the file is not
+distributed in a tarball as a separate product. 
+
+Definition from wikipedia ( us laws, but I think this part is harmonized
+thanks to various treaties, and the french definition is similar ) :
+
+" a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business
+organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or
+services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a
+unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of
+other entities."
+
+If we don't use the name as a distinctive sign or indicator to identify
+a product or a service, then it is not used as a brand or a trademark.
+
+So if we do not use it as a brand or trademark, then the protection do
+not apply.
+
+For example, saying mandriva is not forbidden ( not yet :) ). On the
+other hand, calling a association mandriva-duck would be using the name
+as a brand/trademark and therefor would requires autorisation ( or be
+risky ).
+
+So, my own analysis :
+
+If the name is displayed in a released product to identify it, yes, this
+is problematic. In the rpm name, in the interface like "mandriva control
+center" in title or "about page", in the documentation.
+
+If the name is used in email, or for copyright notice, then we need to
+keep it ( as doing otherwise would be seen as copyright violation ).
+
+If the name is used in a comment, in a procedure or variable name, or in
+a url for technical reason, I do not think it need to be removed
+( except for technical reason, obviously ). 
+
+Now, the tricky part : 
+If we have a file in svn that would display the name in such a way that
+would be used as brand, it this a problem ?
+
+I think it is not, as long as we do not distribute this as a product
+( ie, release a tarball ), nor encourage people to use the old version
+( ie if we say "use the old svn version as the feature are much better
+with all unfixed bug" ). We will be clearly doing the contrary, ie
+distribute fixed software ( with fixed meaning without actively using
+Mandriva name in such a way that we will use it as a brand, distribute
+mean "putting a tarball on our server" ) and push usually the latest
+version. 
+
+Hearst lawyers didn't asked to remove the name from svn/cvs afaik.
+Neither did mozilla asked Debian to do so for the mozilla/iceweasel
+case. 
+
+
+For example, let's take urpmi :
+[misc at virgo ~] $ grep -i -s  mandriva $(rpm -ql urpmi) | grep -v
+Copyright
+
+I removed Copyright because that's legal mention that IMO we need to
+keep.
+
+And so it give :
+/usr/share/doc/urpmi/NEWS is not using the mark ( 2 links and 2
+explanation upon a new feature about mandriva kernel ), this is ot used
+as a distinctive sign.
+
+/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/urpm.pm
+used in the description of the tool.
+
+urpm - Mandriva perl tools to handle the urpmi database
+
+this one is likely be something we will need to change if we distribute
+the module. 
+
+
+/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/urpm/cfg.pm
+-> url to the mirror, can be kept in svn ( but need to be changed to
+work again )
+
+
+/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/urpm/media.pm
+
+$distribconf->settree('mandriva');
+
+name is used as a constant, this is not displayed anywhere. Therefore,
+no problem in keeping it in the history.
+
+/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/urpm/mirrors.pm
+
+-> a procedure called    _mandriva_mirrorlist. Not a trademark
+violation, as this is never displayed. It should be indeed changed to be
+cleaner.
+And some urls used by the procedure.
+
+
+/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/urpm/msg.pm
+
+a comment telling this come from svn.mandriva.com. Not a trademark
+violation.
+
+So basically, for urpmi ( a old version ), the only thing to change is
+the documentation. And as long as we do not distribute it ( ie, in a
+package or in a tarball ), I think it is not used as a distinctive
+sign. 
+
+I will also add that Mandriva is a trademark, but mdv and mdk are not.
+
+Therefore, except the various mandriva-foo-config ( who are more
+configuration than software ) and rpm-mandriva-setup, the software name
+will likely not be a problem.
+
+
+Now, if we decide that we also need to clean svn, we can use git and
+tailor to do some trick to clean the source code ( ie, in the case of
+urpmi, remove the name mandriva from the pod documentation ).
+ 
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+