On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first > > > > place. Is it ? > > > > It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a trademark, as the > > > author claims. I don't think we really want to test that claim, do we? > > > IANAL, but I think you can hardly have a "trademark license" if it's not > > registered. > > Why not? Someone may dispute whether the license has any legal *force*, but > in law you can provide a license to just about anything you're willing to > assert ownership over... including, practically speaking, things you don't > have any legal right to (such as bullshit software patents).
What does a trademark license serve if you can't enforce it ? Nothing. I don't think that's the intent of ion3's upstream. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
