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

Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be started?]

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:19:01PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> "John H. Robinson, IV" <jhriv@ucsd.edu> writes:

> > however, if it is _not_ sponsored by debian, not supported by debian,
> > not approved or endorsed by debian, and does not fall in the guidelines
> > of debian's guidelines of the use of debian's name/logo, then it's a no
> > go.

> This is of course the underlying question. I don't think it would
> change anything discussing this instead of the name. It is one and the
> same thing. (For me at least).

> I think a windows port could be part of Debian (and then should be
> named Debian something) others disagrees. It is not really the name
> we're talking about with regards to Debian.

Please note that there is one other issue here that needs to be
considered.  If Debian decides to endorse a cygwin port, it may upset
some developers, but it is legally acceptable.  If Debian asks those
working on a cygwin port to not use the Debian name, it may also upset
some developers, but it is also a legally sound position.  But, if we do
/nothing/, and we allow the cygwin porters to continue using the Debian
name without an explicit license, then this can be used against us in
court later by someone wishing to appropriate the Debian name for much
more nefarious purposes, as evidence that we have not defended our
trademark against infringing use!

For this reason, it's important to look at the name as a separate
question from the distribution itself, and take decisive action one way
or the other in order to protect the Debian name.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpEN2mfSKOsI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: