On Wednesday 03 June 2009 19:02:58 Benjamin Caplan wrote: > 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?
Seriously, we'll probably just call it "Message Boards" or "Chat" or something, on the main menu. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20090604/fe45db69/attachment.pgp>
