On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:09:17 -0400 Raul Miller wrote: > However, let's take AbiWord as an example. We've been told that we do > not have a license to use "AbiWord" on derivative works. We're > clearly not required to retain "AbiWord" on those works.
It seems correct.
>
> The question is: if we remove the trademarks that label the work, is
> the work then DFSG free?
Yes, I would say.
But is the original unpurged work DFSG-free?
[...]
> > If you are right, I think we would be able to deal with the
> > unfortunate Debian logo issue in a much easier way.
>
> I don't know what problem you're trying to talk about.
I was referring to the "Debian Open Use Logo in main" issue.
If I didn't miss relevant data, its copyright license is still non-free.
And no consensus has yet been reached about the more difficult question,
that is "Do we need to issue a permissive trademark license, too? Can
we? Should we?"
There has been a long thread rather recently in this list...
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpRCVy4hUVGU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
