Hi Sean, > That works fine with honest folk, but what about the company that > wishes to use the marks aggressively, as a selling point, without > providing any support? Or the person who promises to respect GPL > and CC licenses, then turns around and adds Flash binaries to a > Sugar image?
I thought I addressed both of these in an earlier post. Quoting: For example, "you can use the mark without permission as long as your product does not contain proprietary software" is a fine way to control that particular condition, if we wanted to, and similarly "if you are including extra software, you should prominently advertise that Sugar Labs does not provide support for your product, and give your own contact details for support instead" works for support. If either situation happened, the automatic trademark license would be rescinded, because its conditions would no longer be being met. Do you see a problem with this? > Or the guy who claims he sent in an e-mail and never > did, uses the marks and tells the press we never answer our > e-mail? We could setup a bot on [email protected] that replies to applications with an ID number; if you don't get one, you definitely don't have a trademark license yet. In short: I'm hearing that you've thought of constraints and concluded that an automatic trademark license must be unworkable, but I don't share that intuition, so I'd like to examine those constraints to see whether they really do lead to the conclusion of a manual license being necessary. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <[email protected]> One Laptop Per Child _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
