Marco A. Calamari wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 13:09 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote: >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Toseland >> >> Every reasonably interesting name is already in use. :| >> >> Suggestions for renaming Freetalk are welcome as far as I am >> concerned. >> >> We should stick with "Freetalk" unless someone comes up with a clearly >> better name that isn't taken. >> >> The "freetalk" software you mention is not high-profile, and I think we are >> placing >> an excessive restriction on ourselves if we must find an absolutely unique >> name. > > This appear as a licence violation; is it really necessary? > Freenet need absolutely a clearly already taken name? > In this case I suppose that someone can politely ask the previous > art authors ....
Names aren't generally copyrightable, and trademarks only apply to a limited domain. Unless the existing Freetalk is anonymous forum software (it appears to be an IM client?), I think we should be okay. IANAL. How about WaterBoards, since it's a bulletin board system designed to protect against rubberhose cryptography? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20090603/155acd9c/attachment.pgp>
