[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: wpoison, is it okay?



On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:54:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > This license fails DFSG 3 and I would recommend to the author that he
> > use the right tool for the job.  If he wants trademark protection in the
> > Wpoison logo, he should apply for it.  Of course, any party that
> > attempts to use laws other than copyright law to stop people from
> > exercising their freedoms under the DFSG risks having their software
> > dropped from Debian or moved to an archive server where such harassment
> > is less feasible (for instance, U.S. crypto export regulations).
> 
> I agree with Branden's analysis of the license provisions you posted,
> but I think he a little overstates the issues with trademarks.  In
> general, trademarking a name of a piece of software (and restricting
> the use of the name) has not been viewed to have anything to do with
> whether the software is free.

Hence why I said "any party that attempts to use laws other than
copyright law to stop people from exercising their freedoms under the
DFSG".

Where did I assert that trademarking the name of a piece of software has
anything to do with whether the software is free?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    It was a typical net.exercise -- a
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    screaming mob pounding on a greasy
branden@debian.org                 |    spot on the pavement, where used to
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    lie the carcass of a dead horse.

Attachment: pgpf7GqpINSLs.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: