Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation status
- To: debian-project@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation status
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:21:29 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] dk94ap$d1d$2@sea.gmane.org>
- References: <20050725123051.GZ12210@yukidoke.org> <E1E0rPa-00007n-00@pipe.localnet> <20050808003737.GM4781@nozomi> <E1E2HAD-00056d-00@pipe.localnet> <42F8F741.1010504@perens.com> <20050819170033.GB5242@cyan.localnet> <m2n.s.1E6Vsz-005yLm@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <17235.35219.633398.617139@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20051017122503.GA15606@tanglefoot.lunatech.com> <17235.51906.594738.998101@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20051018111738.GA5598@cyan.localnet> <[🔎] dk8kuu$2c6$1@sea.gmane.org> <[🔎] 87vezcjaxs.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>
John Hasler wrote:
>> They need to be asked to change their FAQ to remove more trademark
>> infringements.
>
> Careful. While I agree that all the changes you suggest are desireable, I
> think that most are nominative and so do not infringe the
> trademark.
Well, the ones I mentioned later, perhaps. I'm pretty sure that referring
to "Debian distributions" when they mean "Debian-based distributions" is
a trademark infringment -- it causes exactly the sort of confusion we don't
want and trends dangerously towards making Debian a generic term. I
actually only described that one particular point as trademark
infringement, though my message was perhaps a bit confusing about that.
--
ksig --random|
Reply to: