Rick McGowan wrote: > 2. It is unikely that the Unicode *logo* itself (i.e. the thing at > http://www.unicode.org/webscripts/logo60s2.gif) will be incorporated > directly in any image that people are allowed to put on their > websites, because to put the Unicode logo on a product or whatever > requires a license agreement. I.e. the submissions from E. Trager > are out of scope because they contain the Unicode logo on the > left side.
As this comes from an Unicode official, I guess we should simply accept it... Nevertheless, I wonder whether displaying the Unicode *logo* per se has the same legal implication as displaying a *banner* which contains the Unicode logo. IMVHO, that seems like the difference between producing a T-shirt with the Unicode logo and wearing it. In the first case, I must demonstrate that I asked and obtained the permission from the trade-mark owner; in the second case, I don't have to demonstrate anything (apart, maybe, that I did not steal that piece of garment). _ Marco
