On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:57:31PM +0100, Claudio Moratti wrote: > Hi! > some weeks ago I sent a message about kleansweeb trademark issue... > > I recived one aswer > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/10/msg00040.html)... thanks :D > > the problem is... I sent a request to upstream author, but he didn't do > anything... > > Now, I've a open ITP (329020) about kleansweep, and I'd like to close it! > > I found these solutions: > 1) ignoring trademark issue and send a RFS (i'm not a dd)... trademark issue > is a 'author' problem, not a Debian problem, right? Yes, the problem exists upstream, but it also exists for Debian, I think, because whoever holds the relevant TM could (try to) hold us accountable.
> 2) patching the sources changing the name (kleaner for example...) This is a good possibility; then mention in ./debian/control and README.Debian that the name was changed to avoid the TM. > 3) closing the bug without packaging the software... Unattractive option. > which way do you advise to me? Why don't you keep an unapplied patch in ./debian/ which can be used to change the name? Then, if there is ever a problem, its trivial to fix. AIUI this is the kind of approach that might be taken with firefox.. The patch might be trivial; or, you might initially think that it is trivial, but then keep running into different instances of the TM name. So you might start with such a patch, however small and trivial, but maintain it as you discover hypothetical internal references to the name. I know little of trademarks, and about your specific one, but not packaging the software because of such a problem, when it could be worked around, is still unattrictive. -- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
