Trademark license compatibility with GPL and/or DFSG
MJ Ray wrote:
> Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
> maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
I think it would be helpful if the driver was named after the
technology. If the bluetooth driver was named "harold" and the trident
driver named "poseidon" it would not be obvious that the kernel
supports these technologies. It adds a needless layer of abstraction
onto the naming of kernel modules.
This is part of the more general problem of trademarks in free
software. If we don't solve this problem Debian could become a
distribution of euphemisms.
The company in question is willing to negotiate terms for a trademark
license that is agreeable to all parties. Obviously any advertising or
guarantee restrictions are unacceptable to us. Unlimited use of the
trademark is unacceptable to them. We want unrestricted modification
and redistribution. They want their trademarks stripped from modified
code that is essentially different in intent and purpose from the
original code.
Necessarily the point where they want their trademarks stripped from
the code is within the frontier of possible modifications under the
GPL. However, code that is essentially different in intent and purpose
is also likely to be original work in itself and not a derivative of
the original code. This original work may not use the trademarks
without permission. This restriction is therefore beyond the frontier
of possible derivative works and thus is compatible with the GPL.
Perhaps this is where we can find agreement with them.
What do you think?
Kind regards,
Nicholas
Reply to: