On 22 Aug 2011, at 20:18, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Simon Phipps wrote on 2011-08-21 22:32: >> As a matter of general style I believe TDF should not use the controversial >> expression "intellectual property" anywhere. I suggest the following phrase: >> >>> > "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of >>> > their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks >>> > in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also >>> > subject >>> > to international copyright laws. Uses are explained our trademark >>> > policy." > > IP might indeed be a tough term, I agree. > > However, I feel that "Uses are explained..." isn't strong enough. Wouldn't my > original proposal ("...subject to our...") be better and more binding?
I'm not sure about "binding" as I think "explained" is actually an assertive word, but sure, that's fine too. I was just trying to be concise! S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted