Luis Villa wrote:
Trademark law doesn't give us the flexibility we want, which leaves us
with options (as I see it) that are basically:
* pursue the Mozilla route (strong trademark)...
* collaborate with our lawyers to create and pursue a completely
novel/untested/potentially completely undefens
On 12/17/05, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 18:30 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> [snip]
> > Having a logo for a program which is a
> > "gnome program" and for "gnome developer" ought to be doable given the
> > right definition, and "foundation member" is definitely one
On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 18:30 +, Alan Cox wrote:
[snip]
> Having a logo for a program which is a
> "gnome program" and for "gnome developer" ought to be doable given the
> right definition, and "foundation member" is definitely one that can be
> done today as the foundation has a defined membersh
On 12/17/05, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sad, 2005-12-17 at 11:32 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> > IANAL (yet), but... under US trademark law (and most European
> > trademark law, as I understand it) basically all users of the mark
> > must ask us for permission before use. We cannot adopt
On Sad, 2005-12-17 at 11:32 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> IANAL (yet), but... under US trademark law (and most European
> trademark law, as I understand it) basically all users of the mark
> must ask us for permission before use. We cannot adopt a permission
> scheme which allows any use of the logo w
On 12/17/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/17/05, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Luis:
> >
> > IMO there may be yet another option, i.e. the 'Debian' route, where we
> > have one logo package (the default?) that's not trademarked (though IMO
> > the 'GNOME' name shou
On 12/17/05, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Luis:
>
> IMO there may be yet another option, i.e. the 'Debian' route, where we
> have one logo package (the default?) that's not trademarked (though IMO
> the 'GNOME' name should remain trademarked), and one, downloadable from
> gnome.org,
On 12/17/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IANAL (yet), but... under US trademark law (and most European
> trademark law, as I understand it) basically all users of the mark
> must ask us for permission before use. We cannot adopt a permission
> scheme which allows any use of the logo whi
Hi Luis:
IMO there may be yet another option, i.e. the 'Debian' route, where we
have one logo package (the default?) that's not trademarked (though IMO
the 'GNOME' name should remain trademarked), and one, downloadable from
gnome.org, which is trademarked and therefore (perhaps ironically) not
En/na Luis Villa ha escrit:
> * give up the legally enforceable mark and use a political party
> approach- accept that there will be some uses we don't like and can't
> control, but use the mechanisms of party (speech, platform creation,
> etc.) to control the mark as much as possible outside of
On 12/17/05, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About Ray's package and Luis Villa's post:
> http://tieguy.org/blog/index.cgi/524
>
> I think the Foundation needs official logos owned by the Foundation to
> be used by the official GNOME projects in order to give consistancy to
> the GNOME brand.
About Ray's package and Luis Villa's post:
http://tieguy.org/blog/index.cgi/524
I think the Foundation needs official logos owned by the Foundation to
be used by the official GNOME projects in order to give consistancy to
the GNOME brand.
But I also think that we should make a more extensive use
(Sending to foundation-list because I think the people that are most
interested with trademark issues are on this list)
Hi,
One thing that I think GNOME is missing right now is a packaged set of
logos that gnome applications can use. We do have logos here:
http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/random/logo
13 matches
Mail list logo
