Re: Trademark license compatibility with GPL and/or DFSG
On 5/19/05, Nicholas Jefferson <xanthophile@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I'm not at all sure that all advertising or guarantee restrictions are
unacceptable to us.
We should have no problem, for example, with a restriction that
advertising using the mark be truthful. And, anything less than
that would probably be invalid under trademark law.
We should have no problem, for example, with a "no warrantee"
disclaimer. We don't have that problem with the GPL, so why
should we have it with trademarks?
> 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?
Asking that we rename the software if and when it's no longer a
driver for the trademarked technology seems reasonable, and
within the bounds of the DFSG. Since it's not a copyright
issue (the copies can still be freely modified and distributed,
regardless -- the GPL doesn't require that active fraud
be legal), I don't think this would be a GPL issue, either.
--
Raul
Reply to: