Ibrahim Haddad wrote:
> We would ask you to move away from using {M,m}-e-e-{G,g}-o or any subset of
> those letters or sounds in that order, alone or in combination with other
> letters, words or marks that would tend to cause someone to make a
> reasonable connection of the reference with the MeeGo mark. We specifically
> discussed one possibility for illustration purposes – which is to use MG in
> the place of MeeGo.  We do not think that a plain text MG, when used in
> reference to the code, as in a file or project or team name, would cause a
> reasonable person to be confused.

OK, so for this to be possible, {M,m}-e-e-{G,g}-o must be never used
in the works of The Meego Project as a functional term.  That is to
ask, is it possible to change the name without impacting on other
software which uses the works of The Meego Project?  There is no
libmeego* or anything like that?

If there is a libmeego*, then clearly meego should be used in some way
for interoperability and I suggest the trademark policy changes to be
reasonable and explicitly allow use of meego as part of functional
names.  That is, drop the file name constraint above.  It's just
honest description of the upstream source of the code and not
necessarily used in product names.  File names aren't normally covered
by trademarks, are they?

If there isn't a libmeego* or similar, I guess all is well and I
thank everyone for clarifying it.

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


_______________________________________________
Pkg-meego-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-meego-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-meego-maintainers

Reply via email to