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 [email protected]
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
