David Grove wrote:
> > =head1 TITLE
> >
> > New Perl Mascot
> >
> > =head1 VERSION
> >
> > Maintainer: David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 28 Sep 2000
> > Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Number: 343
> > Version: 1
> > Status: Developing
> I hope you guys don't mind my placing this RFC into this mailing list. A
> huge portion of it surrounds licensing issues, and for lack of a
> perl6-animals list this seemed the most appropriate.
I believe this is the right place. <perl6-meta> would have been the only
other place, but I think this is better.
I like RFC 324 for the most part. I have a few points to make, which I will
post in an hour or so.
> Now, the question is, is the trademarking referred to in this document
> contrary to our current licensing theories? It would be a crying shame if
> Company X d ecided to grab [symbol name], mutilate it, trademark it, and
> make their new symbol a forced standard. It would totally kill the purpose
> for having it.
I think that any image we use in the Perl community *should* have a
trademark, and, IMHO, the trademark holder should be Larry himself.
Consider what happened with the trademark (or was it a service mark?) on the
word "Linux". It took a court battle to get the trademark to be handed back
to Linus Torvalds.
Actually, before you wrote RFC 343, I was already planning on writing an RFC
that claimed Larry should get a trademark on "Perl", in the area of computer
science, and license it freely to anyone who uses the Standard Version of
"Perl", but not to those who aren't using the Standard Version. This would
help reach the goal that the Artistic License tries for.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
