Re: Trademark scope (just for the record)
Quoting Don Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> Those of us who have discussed this issue at length are quite aware of
> the scope of trademark law and the obvious cases where we would need
> permission, and where permission is not required.
Good to know. I'd not seen signs of that awareness on this mailing
list, but admittedly I end up deleting unread large swathes of both this
mailing list and d-d, for lack of time.
> You'll note that in the discussion we've distinguished between
> functional and non-functional uses of the trademark.
OK. (For the benefit of observers: Trademark encumbrance doesn't apply
to purely functional features, only to stylistic elements of a product's
style or presentation. If there's only one way to reasonably design
something in functional context, then third parties cannot be blocked
from using that design on trademark grounds.)
> Finally, the precise place where trademark rights stop is necessarily
> a legal question; the place where we decide to compromise, a community
Fair enough, if you say that's the context, Don. I'd have interpreted
Debian Project's action in that light much more readily if I'd seen
someone, anyone, even once say "You know, we aren't obliged to do this
by trademark law, but we're going the extra mile in order to be
super-good neighbours". Instead, all I've seen is "[Foo's] trademark
policy requires us to do this."