Hello. Please accept my apologies if I am flogging a dead horse. I have ST*W but I cannot find a definitive solution to this problem. I did find a thread [1] on debian-legal from last year but it had more questions than answers ;-)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00236.html I have been working on a Linux kernel driver for a certain wireless modem. I think it may be helpful to name the driver after the technology. Unfortunately, the company's trademark guide makes the following restrictions on the use of the trademark: (1) the product (i.e. the Linux kernel) must display the trademark on the splash screen (or in the About... box); (2) the trademark must appear in all documentation, marketing and promotional materials for the product; (3) the product must be guaranteed to be compliant with the wireless protocol; and (4) the uses of the trademark must be approved by the company before (each) distribution. I'd say we can't accept these terms ;-) What terms could we accept? Can we accept the restriction that any modification to the product must, at a minimum, first strip the trademarks from the product (or otherwise seek re-approval for their use from the company)? Can we accept the lesser restriction that any *significant* modification (whatever this means) to the product must, at a minimum, first strip the trademarks from the product (or otherwise seek re-approval for their use from the company)? I'd say the company would not license their trademark for free use without the lesser restriction, at least. It seems that these restrictions are incompatible with the GPL. On the other hand, any trademark license would permit us to use their trademark, which we could not do otherwise. With this understanding these are not restrictions at all but liberations! DFSG #4 permits licences that require derived works to carry a different name or version number but does not permit other minimum modification requirements. What do you think? Are these restrictions compatible with the GPL and/or the DFSG? How about if the trademark license could be revoked arbitrarily instead of imposing a "no significant modification" restriction (which is also somewhat arbitrary)? Would this fail the Tentacles of Evil test? It's a bit late for "don't ask, don't tell" as well ;-) Kind regards, Nicholas