On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 08:56:26AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I probably would, if I knew for certain what you meant by "work titles".
By "work title", I mean the title of the work in a legal sense; for
example, as it is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in the case,
of copyrights, or wi
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:22:41PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> * I noticed that there is at least one thing that can be done in the
> second hypothesis, but not in the first one: ...
If it matters -- if the trademark has some major significance beyond
being the product in question -- then the t
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:30:45 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> You're missing my point. While what you said was true, it does not in
> any way refute the statement that we'd also have to distribute
> software which said "This is Abiword" -- the root to which the patches
> are applied.
Perhaps
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 05:07:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It seems unlikely that work (A) which GPLed but is not trademarked
> > "abiword" would be more or less DFSG-free than work (B) which is GPLed
> > but is not trademarked "AbiWord".
>
> Huh?
>
> It seems unlikely that:
> work (A)
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:09:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, let's take AbiWord as an example. We've been told that we do
> not have a license to use "AbiWord" on derivative works.
Er, well, we kind of do -- did you follow footnote 2 in my message?
We have a sort of license, but it's
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:48:06 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> You can't quite change the name of the work using a patch. You always
>> have to distribute the original, which includes its name. If Abiword
>> were under a patch-clause license, Deb
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:55:30PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> But is the original unpurged work DFSG-free?
I'm not sure that's the right question.
Remember, we interpret the DFSG based on the spirit of the rules, rather
than the letter.
I think the right question is: how should we handle thi
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:48:06 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> You can't quite change the name of the work using a patch. You always
> have to distribute the original, which includes its name. If Abiword
> were under a patch-clause license, Debian'd have to distribute
> software which said "Th
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:09:17 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
> However, let's take AbiWord as an example. We've been told that we do
> not have a license to use "AbiWord" on derivative works. We're
> clearly not required to retain "AbiWord" on those works.
It seems correct.
>
> The question is: if w
I think you're mistaken in calling the trademark issue a restriction
on modification. It is a restriction on the manner of distribution of
certain modifications. I can make whatever changes I like, but I may
not distribute them under the mark "Abiword."
Your substantive argument, however, is per
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:48:09 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
> > But not basic logic about "permission to modify". Instead, basic
> > logic about "what do trademark restrictions mean".
> >
> > I don't see that trademark prohibitions can affect whether a GPLed
> > program is DFSG free or not.
On Sun,
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:12:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Let me try to summarize their position as I understand it:
>
> A) The existing trademark restrictions documented in
>/usr/share/doc/abiword/copyright are out of date, as is
>http://www.abisource.com/tm_guide.phtml >. Unfo
You can't quite change the name of the work using a patch. You always
have to distribute the original, which includes its name. If Abiword
were under a patch-clause license, Debian'd have to distribute
software which said "This is Abiword" on every startup... plus
patches.
-Brian
--
Brian Snif
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:28:59 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
[...]
> > That's not enough for DFSG-freeness, IMHO: if I'm required to keep
> > the name "abiword" in every derivative work of abiword, I cannot
> > sanely choose a name for a derivative that is significantly
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:48:09 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
> Huh?
>
> What makes you think we'd be required to keep the name "abiword" in
> every derivative work?
Perhaps the fact that I missed the "some" in your phrase... :p
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
[...]
> Basic logic.
Ah, OK.
>
>
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.
That's true in the US, too; http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew112.php
says:
> In order to
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:40:23 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
>
>> If we are prohibited from removing the name abiword from some
>> derivative form of the program, then we must be allowed to have
>> abiword on that derivative form.
>
> That's not enough for DFS
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:40:23 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
> > If we are prohibited from removing the name abiword from some
> > derivative form of the program, then we must be allowed to have
> > abiword on that derivative form.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 04:04:46PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> That'
O Venres, 15 de Outubro de 2004 ás 12:40:23 -0400, Raul Miller escribía:
> > 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 th
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:40:23 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
> If we are prohibited from removing the name abiword from some
> derivative form of the program, then we must be allowed to have
> abiword on that derivative form.
That's not enough for DFSG-freeness, IMHO: if I'm required to keep the
name "a
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 St
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 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 fro
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
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
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 purport
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
/usr/share/doc
27 matches
Mail list logo
