On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:02:35PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:31:42AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > Which would amount to saying "We won't tell you why, but please change
> > > your name." I think that would be discouteous in the extreme.
>
> > No, they simply could have said that they were worried that people would
> > be confused that NetBSD was a product of the Debian Project.
>
> Isn't that what they did?
No. They didn't "simply" do that. They "complexly" did that, including
that statement with several others.
> They added that such confusion might make it hard for them to defend
> their trademark.
Have you seen the precise language?
> Is that a threat of litigation against Debian? I think not.
As I keep saying, and as you keep ignoring, there is no such thing as a
common-law trademark. If they feel we are using their mark, they either
have to license it to us, take us to court, or convince us to stop.
> It is simply an explanations of their misgivings.
The fact that you keep using the term "simply" so much is revealing, and
suggestive that you are in fact *over*simplifying the situation.
Enough with the apologetics for the NetBSD Foundation. There was no
moral censure -- implcit or explicit -- in my remarks. I said several
times that they were within their rights to act as they feel U.S. law
compels them to.
> > > 4) Ask us nicely to stop.
>
> > Not compatible with mention of trademark.
>
> Yes, because their trademark is one of the reasons why they would like
> us to stop. That is called being open, not being threatening.
They've put us on notice that we need to stop, in their opinion,
infringing their trademark. Have you looked up the penalties for
willful infringement of trademark in the U.S. lately?
> > There is no such thing as a common-law trademark.
>
> I don't see the connection between that and what I wrote.
Obviously not. You seem to think it is possible to threaten people with
litigation in a completely polite manner. I say it's a fundmanetally
rude thing to do. That the law compels them to be rude doesn't make the
behavior non-rude -- merely regretfully understandable.
> > Telling someone that they are (or "might be") diluting your
> > trademark is putting them on notice that you think you have a
> > potential tort claim against them.
>
> Perhaps it has that legal implication.
"Perhaps"? Is it necessary to cite statutes and case law at you to
establish this to your satisfaction? Or are even they sufficient?
> You are claiming that this legal implication is *why* they told us
> about their misgivings.
It doesn't have to be the only reason. That the word "trademark" was
used is sufficient to involve the ramifications of notification under
trademark law.
> I find it hard to believe that, when the alternative explanation that
> they were just being polite is so much more likely.
Your alternative explanation is belied by the fact that trademarks were
brought into the discussion. Again, you're grossly oversimplifying.
You're saying their message only mean "A", and accusing me of saying
their message only meant "B". I'm saying their message meant A *and* B,
and that A is rude. Because A is rude, the entire message is rude.
That B is not rude doesn't mean the entire message isn't.
I take if someone mailed you the following:
You f***ing a**hole, why you don't go f*** yourself in the a** with a
big rubber d***.
HTH. HAND.
That you would not regard the message as fundamentally polite just
because part of it said "Hope this helps. Have a nice day". On the
other hand, some people in world, and even in the Debian Project,
attempt to hang fig leaves over rude messages in just this manner.
Perhaps that some people will apply your method of interpretation to
such messages is what prevents such people from being reprimanded. They
can always claim the message was polite because there were polite words
in it.
> I still don't see how you think they could have explained their
> problems in a polite way, then. Your book seems to say that being open
> is impolite.
They would have to have not mentioned the trademark issue at all. It
was certainly possible for them to have done so. That they elected not
to was their prerogative.
> > In yours, for all I know, it's a means of romantic flirtation.
>
> Please read what I wrote. Telling us why they are worried *is*
> polite.
Not if it's expressed in a manner conjoined with an implicit threat of
litigation.
> Just telling us that they are worred, and deliberately withholding
> information about why is impolite.
I disagree. Is *not* telling your wife that her ass looks fat in her
new pair of jeans impolite[1]?
Sometimes discretion is the most appropriate expression of courtesy.
[1] Of course, it may be a wholly neutral action if both you and your
wife share the preferences of Sir Mix-A-Lot. :)
--
G. Branden Robinson | Human beings rarely imagine a god
Debian GNU/Linux | that behaves any better than a
branden@debian.org | spoiled child.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature