On Friday 07 August 2009 20:10:14 you wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Raymond Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not at all. There is even evidence in the FSF documentation somewhere > > exactly > > about this point and they vehemently disagree with any attitude like > > that. We > > all know very well the situation of Emacs, Xemacs, and various other > > forks. > > The FSF is not the law. I suggest you look up Trademark Law to realize why > you are wrong, and why you are subject to a lawsuit for knowingly creating > a product that is infringing on an already existing trademark(Regeristered > or Unregeristered would make a small, but only small, difference in this > case), and can easily be confused as such. In fact the case against > forcing you to change it is rather strong because not only is your product > nearly identical in name, it is nearly identical in function and can be > easily confused with the original.
Another fool. Trademarks apply to commercial interests, the program is non-commercial in nature. Thus it would be very difficult for anything to be done about this for creating a free program from a free program. Maybe you should check the fact that there is already another program called improvisor that exists that is not Impro-Visor, it is a commercial company that could claim trademark infringement against Impro-Visor. So if anybody is in a problem it will be Impro-Visor first. Raymond _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
