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

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 01:10:49AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Does the GPL say anything about restrictions that other licenses may place
> on the *naming* of combined works?  The closest I can see is in section 6,
> it says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein."  Since trademark isn't mentioned
> (i.e., there is no "you are hereby granted a right to use the trademarks
> associated with this program") then I have a feeling it's not covered.

The GPL doesn't say anything about trademarking, but note that the
lifetime of a trademark and the lifetime of a copyright are different --
trademark licensing and copyright licensing really deserve independent
licensing documents.

> To give an example, Linus owns the trademark on Linux, and while I'm not
> sure he's actually pursued any action against an entity using it against
> his wishes, I know he reserves the right to (by making sure people put
> "Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds" at the bottom of
> advertising & PR materials from the major Linux vendors).  

Linus didn't pursue a trademark on linux, but then someone went out and
registered it, and tried to get everyone using linux to pay up.

Needless to say, this wasn't a very smart move, and some lawyers took
the case on.  People were even donating money to sort this out.  Anyways,
this guy -- I forget who he was -- coughed up the trademark (and I think
got some of the money in exchange) and donated it to Linus.

Now that Linus has the trademark, there's some basic forms he has to
follow to keep it.  That trademark notice is one of those things.

But, still, the trademark notice is independent of the copyright notice...


Reply to: