On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 05:12:25PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > Is it any longer even possible to claim a trademark on the Open Use Logo, > with such a liberal Open Use license? I don't see why not. Case in point: STARTFONT 2.1 FONT -Adobe-Helvetica-Bold-R-Normal--11-80-100-100-P-60-ISO10646-1 SIZE 8 100 100 FONTBOUNDINGBOX 12 19 -1 -5 COMMENT $Xorg: $ COMMENT ISO10646-1 extension by Markus Kuhn <mkuhn@acm.org>, 2001-03-20 COMMENT COMMENT + COMMENT Copyright 1984-1989, 1994 Adobe Systems Incorporated. COMMENT Copyright 1988, 1994 Digital Equipment Corporation. COMMENT COMMENT Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated which may be COMMENT registered in certain jurisdictions. COMMENT Permission to use these trademarks is hereby granted only in COMMENT association with the images described in this file. COMMENT COMMENT Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software COMMENT and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby COMMENT granted, provided that the above copyright notices appear in all COMMENT copies and that both those copyright notices and this permission COMMENT notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of COMMENT Adobe Systems and Digital Equipment Corporation not be used in COMMENT advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software COMMENT without specific, written prior permission. Adobe Systems and COMMENT Digital Equipment Corporation make no representations about the COMMENT suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as COMMENT is" without express or implied warranty. COMMENT - > Given that trademarks must be actively protected, it seems to me that > we're very much on the edge of what trademark law will actually > protect. The fact that we have a liberal copyright license on something does not mean we're not actively protecting a trademark. > Moreover, I think the fact that two of these possible infringements > involve modifications to the logo rather moves the question out of the > domain of trademark law and into the domain of copyright law. Eh? Either I don't understand you, or I use Adobe's example above to rebut you. > This also means that, ironies aside, a DFSG-compliant license for the > Open Use Logo would curtail our options in prosecuting derived works. I think you are leaping to this conclusion. > And maybe that's ok, too; I think there should be open discussion of > whether we want to stick to trademark law for protecting the logo > (tempered with an appropriate dose of legal advice, of course). Debian should, of course, discuss the issue if there are concerns, quite apart from which of us is right or wrong, and about what. -- G. Branden Robinson | Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from branden@debian.org | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks
Attachment:
pgpgWt1PjiUEE.pgp
Description: PGP signature