Hi folks,
At Josh Kwan's request, I hopped into the IRC channel used by AbiWord
developers and had a brief chat with them about our concerns over trademark
licensing.
Let me try to summarize their position as I understand it:
A) The existing trademark restrictions documented in
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:21:44PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote:
3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the
preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
all available documentation describing how to modify the Original
Work. Licensor hereby agrees
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:39:31PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote:
I must admit that I lack the legal expertise to claim that the AFL 2.1
conforms to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, since it talks about
needlessly complicated things like patents and jurisdictions.
Both the Open Source
On Friday 15 October 2004 04:22, Ben Burton wrote:
Hi,
(CCing debian-legal since they know better than I do. The problem here
is a potential conflict between GPL and BSD-with-advertising-clause; see
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-develm=109779477208076w=2 for my
original post. The
On 2004-10-14 18:21:44 +0100 Carlos Laviola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
9) Acceptance and Termination. If You distribute copies of the
Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort
under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to
the terms of this
On 2004-10-14 18:39:31 +0100 Carlos Laviola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Since none of us can possibly suffer a commercial loss, and since
FIGlet
is not registered with the Copyright Office, there is no one with
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:12:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Therefore, I think the biggest question for us is:
1) Do the default protections that attach to trademarks, even when
unregistered and unmentioned (not even with a (TM)), infringe upon the
freedoms the DFSG purports to
Hi,
So the mentioned paragraph in vm_random.c should be considered struck as per
July 22, 1999
In which case, could you (or someone else willing to take this
responsibility) please delete the clause from vm_random.c in CVS to
avoid future confusion?
Thanks - Ben.
On Friday 15 October 2004 12:13, Ben Burton wrote:
Hi,
So the mentioned paragraph in vm_random.c should be considered struck as
per July 22, 1999
In which case, could you (or someone else willing to take this
responsibility) please delete the clause from vm_random.c in CVS to
avoid
On Friday 15 October 2004 12:54, Andrew Coles wrote:
On Friday 15 Oct 2004 11:37, Waldo Bastian wrote:
I don't think I can because the other part of the license says
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided
that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
Good idea, I added
(...)
Many thanks.
Ben.
That retraction is only valid for original BSD code, not for any changes to
it.
Ah, sorry -- don't drink derive, etc. -- this was also one of my
concerns, especially since the file does seem to have been through some
refashioning since it was pulled out of BSD.
If
any changes were made
On October 15, 2004 09:36 am, Ben Burton wrote:
If it is too difficult to case up all the contributers to vm_random.c,
might it be easier to alter the licensing on the KDE portions of the
screensaver (the GPLed parts) in the meantime?
Might it be even *easier*, to avoid all this hassle, to
Drafts of some primers are available for public comment. For those who
like alphabet soup, the International Open Source Network (IOSN) is an
Asia Pacific Development Information Programme (APDIP) initiative of
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
These publications could be
O Venres, 15 de Outubro de 2004 ás 02:12:41 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía:
First of all, I Am Not A Lawyer, so don't sue me if your trial goes bad.
It's all your fault for believing me :-)
And now...
I think that trademarks are irrelevant to DFSG-freeness since if the
copyright license is
O Venres, 15 de Outubro de 2004 ás 17:50:29 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
I think that trademarks are irrelevant to DFSG-freeness since if the
Oops, I have just thought of a case where it isn't so, at least in Spain.
The Spanish trade mark law allows the owner of a trademark to prohibit its
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:11:12PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Oops, I have just thought of a case where it isn't so, at least in Spain.
The Spanish trade mark law allows the owner of a trademark to prohibit its
removal from a product.
If we are prohibited from removing the name abiword from
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 17:50:12 +0200, Jocobo Tarrio wrote:
IOW, nowhere in the DFSG says something like you cannot restrict the
user's right to have their modified copies of the software called in the
same way as the original. In fact, there's one place (DFSG #4) where it
says just the
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:12:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
C) They feel that because trademark rights are automatic and implicit
(though you are in a better position to sue people if you claim your
marks with a (TM), and better still if you register them with the
United States
19 matches
Mail list logo
