Re: DomainKeys license(s)
Not quite contradicting what was written, but it isn't quite so simple...
Stephen Gran <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> trademarks are a no-op. The DFSG allows for name-change clauses (DFSG 4).
> This allows us to modify and redistribute without infringing trademarks
> if need be. No freedom issue here.
The trademark-related freedom problems I've seen most often are uses of
a copyright licence to support a 'super-trademark' either by termination
clause, or simply including software which doesn't follow DFSG (logo
artwork and so on). I think super-trademark terminations were one of
the inspirations for the suggested Dictator Test.
By the way, are there still a few countries not in the Berne Union? Maybe
copyright isn't completely cross-jurisdiction, but it seems near enough.
> Patents on the other hand are completely jurisdiction dependant. [...]
Not completely (TRIPS, WTO, bilaterals, blah) but enough to be annoying.
> [...] If it is not under
> active enforcement, and is under a free license, there is no reason not
> to have it in main.
Sounds sensible to me. Anyone knows case law well? What might happen
if a submarine patent in main starts being actively enforced? It looks
to me as if the usual opening move is to send a take-down notice:
Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct