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?
Florian
--
Florian Effenberger <flo...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
--
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
