On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:09:17AM -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. Er, well, we kind of do -- did you follow footnote 2 in my message? We have a sort of license, but it's Debian-specific and there is some vaguely defined boundary beyond which our license would terminate. That territory beyond the trademark license would appear to be within the boundaries of permissible changes under the GNU GPL, hence my discomfort. > The question is: if we remove the trademarks that label the work, is > the work then DFSG free? I think it is uncontroversial to assert that, barring unforeseen things like AbiWord copyright holders revealing a patent, that AbiWord would be DFSG-free if no trademarks apply to it. It is, after all, GPLed. > It seems unlikely that work (A) which GPLed but is not trademarked > "abiword" would be more or less DFSG-free than work (B) which is GPLed > but is not trademarked "AbiWord". Huh? It seems unlikely that: work (A) which [is] GPLed but is not trademarked "abiword" would be more or less free than work (B) which is GPLed but is not trademarked "AbiWord" ??? Are you trying to make a point about case, or did you mean something else entirely? I have long asserted that there is a distinction between work titles and things like package names and filenames. Do you disagree? -- G. Branden Robinson | For every credibility gap, there is Debian GNU/Linux | a gullibility fill. branden@debian.org | -- Richard Clopton http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature