On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 09:41 -0500, Dominic Lachowicz wrote: > On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Perhaps - this has been discussed on the Board for years. As I > > understand it, the guidance from legal consultations so far has not > > helped sketch out such a guideline, and I was under the impression that > > there is little, if any, legal precedent for such implicit licensing. > > If we want to avoid the "implicitness" bit, perhaps we could have some > sort of secure webapp that clearly defines the TOCs of such a TM > policy, delineating the rights and limitations one has when using the > Foundation's marks. By filling in your relevant information and > clicking "accept", an explicit contract between the foundation and you > - the licensee - has been formed. The licensee is bound by the > contract, and may use the TMs in a way that is consistent with said > contract. The Foundation still gets to enforce and protect its mark, > while still being fairly liberal with who gets to use it. > > Under such a policy, no warm-bodies would be involved past the initial > setup stages, unless people were found to be infringing the TM or > violating the TOCs of the contract.
The user-group agreement is currently done as an electronic click-through. http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/usergroup/ I'm not sure that going over https would make it any more legally binding... Owen _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
