On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:09:17 -0400 Raul Miller wrote: > However, let's take AbiWord as an example. We've been told that we do > not have a license to use "AbiWord" on derivative works. We're > clearly not required to retain "AbiWord" on those works. It seems correct. > > The question is: if we remove the trademarks that label the work, is > the work then DFSG free? Yes, I would say. But is the original unpurged work DFSG-free? [...] > > If you are right, I think we would be able to deal with the > > unfortunate Debian logo issue in a much easier way. > > I don't know what problem you're trying to talk about. I was referring to the "Debian Open Use Logo in main" issue. If I didn't miss relevant data, its copyright license is still non-free. And no consensus has yet been reached about the more difficult question, that is "Do we need to issue a permissive trademark license, too? Can we? Should we?" There has been a long thread rather recently in this list... -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpDdz6i9gwin.pgp
Description: PGP signature