On 2004-06-09 09:17:45 +0100 Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> wrote:
I just don't think the second paragraph in the trademark box is binding in any way. After all, Creative Commons (quite wisely) states that it is not a party to the license. For what reason, then, should either of the parties be bound by the excessive trademark restriction paragraph?
It seems it should not be in the licence. I admit, I didn't understand why it should be part of the licence, from the situation you describe. Sadly, that doesn't mean that people don't have to comply with the licence as written. People have added the trademark block to Creative Commons licences as part of their licence. For example, the subversion book includes it in their copyright licence at http://svnbook.red-bean.com/svnbook/ape.html
This bug has spread!
But I think Bob isn't bound by Evil Commons's decree in any way -- neither under trademark law, nor under copyright law, nor under the license agreement. _Alice_ didn't Bob couldn't use the trademark; Evil Commons did.
Why isn't he? Complying with CC's trademark terms is a condition of the licence Alice used. Being someone else's trademark doesn't excuse Bob from complying with the copyright licence, including agreeing to use the CC trademark however it is permitted, does it? It's just that Alice and CC both need to go evil to attack Bob.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/