Re: Trademark license compatibility with GPL and/or DFSG
Nicholas Jefferson <xanthophile@gmail.com> wrote:
> What terms could we accept?
Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
> Can we accept the restriction that any modification to the product
> must, at a minimum, first strip the trademarks from the product (or
> otherwise seek re-approval for their use from the company)?
Name changes seem fine to me, as long as it can be redistributed
by others without changes without a name change (so the trademark
licence is not specific to debian).
> Can we accept the lesser restriction that any *significant*
> modification (whatever this means) to the product must, at a minimum,
> first strip the trademarks from the product (or otherwise seek
> re-approval for their use from the company)? [...]
That's a lawyerbomb. I wouldn't want to accept it.
> It seems that these restrictions are incompatible with the GPL.
I agree.
> On the
> other hand, any trademark license would permit us to use their
> trademark, which we could not do otherwise. With this understanding
> these are not restrictions at all but liberations! [...]
I think that's like arguing that any copyright licence is a
liberation from the default no-copying-allowed, so is compatible
with GPL. I don't agree.
I think it is right and proper to apply DFSG to trademarks,
patents and trade secrets, by the way.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: