On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Christopher Havel
<laserhaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you're being a bit literal there. I don't see any problem with what
> Ron is doing. As far as I can tell, he's well within US Copyright Law's
> "Fair Use" clause (17 USC Section 107). I realize it's more likely to be
> the Berne Convention that would apply here -- but the Fair Use Clause is
> something of a benchmark.
>
> I don't see that Ron is intending to derive personal gain or profit from
> the use case he's come up with. He's just kind of trying to have fun with a
> hobbyist project.

 ... which is actually *more* dangerous for EOMA68 than anything else,
because of the risk to life through failure to properly respect the
EOMA68 Standard.

>  Even if that hobbyist project ends up on e.g.
> Instructables -- that doesn't reflect on YOU anywhere near as much as it
> does HIM.

 if there is ABSOLUTELY NO mention of "EOMA68" in the (hypothetical)
documentation on Instructables.... that would be the case, yes.

 if however there is ANY MENTION of EOMA68 on the (hypothetical)
documentation, and as a result of (hypothetical) culpable negligance
someone ends up dead, then it DOES reflect on me... and as the
guardian of the EOMA68 Standard i have to take that really REALLY
seriously.

 this isn't like Arduino.  EOMA68 is a mass-volume standard.


>Technically, yes, you've made the project possible, but it's HIS
> project, and it's made pretty clear to anyone who subsequently takes on
> that project that THEY as a third party (at best) are personally liable for
> their own feckups --

 they are... as long as they do not try to claim that it has anything
to do with EOMA68.

 this is Trademark Law.  it's not just "plain Copyright Law", chris.

 ok let's give an example, here.  RYF Certification.  that's exactly
the same.  can you just go "i want to claim i am RYF Certified and
that i represent the FSF" without *ACTUALLY* asking them for explicit
permission to do so?


> Forgive me for sayin' -- but you're coming across as something of a bully
> here. Your concerns are largely unfounded, given a reasonable, fair, and
> equitable court system... which, at least for these purposes, is something
> quite reasonable to expect. I realize I'm not in command, but I'm still
> going to ask you politely to lay off here.

 you can't do that, i'm sorry.  you are not the Copyright Holder of
the EOMA68 Standard.  you are not an authorised, Certified
representative, as authorised by me, the Copyright Holder of the
EOMA68 Standard, and under Trademark Law i am obligated to inform you
- politely - that your request cannot be honoured.

 it is with some regret that i have to inform you of that, as you have
been so extremely understanding and supportive of this project.

 however this is really the first time that this has come up - so
there may be a significant number of misunderstandings regarding the
difference between "plain old Copright Law" and "Trademark Law"
specifically as associated with "Certification Marks".

 can i recommend that you (and others) look up what the difference is?
 it would be very helpful for all of us to go over it.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Reply via email to