On 2018年02月13日 15:38, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> he's calling into question my authority and the right as a Copyright
> Holder of the word - and standard - "EOMA68", chris. that's very very
> serious. and also publicly recorded. you can double-check that by
> re-reading the messages.
> i am REQUIRED to respond to that - by explicitly asserting that i AM
> the sole exclusive Copyright Holder of EOMA68 and that i AM the sole
> exclusive authority over the EOMA68 Standard, and that i cannot
> tolerate people claiming that they are blithely and arbitrarily
> permitted to ignore my authority under Copyright Law.
Luke, I hope you don't find this to be pedantic, but if you do, I would
point out that RMS is very vocal about this point.
Copyright and trademark law are *not* the same thing. You can't hold a
copyright on a name, only a trademark. This is an important distinction
because the way copyright and trademark laws operate is not the same.
As far as being "required to respond", I assume you are referring to the
possibility of genericide of a trademark, when you lose a trademark
because you fail to inform the public how it is properly used, causing
it to be used to mean something more generic, e.g. if people started
calling SEGA video games "Nintendos". This has nothing to do with
"liability". It just has to do with whether or not a particular name can
still be trademarked.
Either that, or perhaps you are referring to some other law which is
neither copyright nor trademark, and spreading confusion by using two
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.
Protect your emails with GnuPG:
arm-netbook mailing list email@example.com
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk