Re: Python Software Foundation trademark policy
Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:
> <sigh> Could you really not work out what I meant?
<sigh> No. I had no idea how you think the trademark is being
infringed in your example.
> The CD I have been sold by the Debian distributor uses the Python
> trademarks to label their shipped version of the Python code. I notice
> this when I interact with what I have purchased in any of the ways
> listed above. The fact that the name Python is not printed on the
> outside of the CD is surely not relevant to whether the distributor is
> passing off their version of Python under the trademark.
Passing off is a little different, so I don't want to confuse that
with trademarks. I've already commented that I don't believe we're
passing off the debianised CPython as PSF CPython.
How is "Python" being used by the distributor to label the shipped
version of CPython in any way that you can determine *during*
purchase?
If the label is not on the outside of the CD or otherwise used in the
course of trade by the distributor, how is the trademark infringed by
the distributor?
If there is no infringement, why does the distributor need permission?
> [...] In the case of a Debian redistributor selling me
> a set of Debian CDs, is your position that:
> a) The distribution is not "commercial distribution" of Python; or
> b) The distributor is not redistributing the Python programming
> language; or
> c) The distribution does not use the word "Python"; or
> d) The distribution does not meet the test of being a "freely
> distributed application"; or
> y) The PSF does not have the right, under trademark law, to make the
> restriction quoted above for the uses to which Debian puts the word;
> or
> z) something else?
A bit of y, a bit of something like c and a bit of z. My position is
that I do not understand why the distributor would *need* to infringe
the "Python" word trademark. I see no need to use the Python mark in
the course of trade to distribute debian. If they want to, then they
should get permission, but that's the same for other names and marks
included in debian already.
Further, I believe the PSF has registered the Python word trademark,
not the English word "python", and the executable name and the package
names are necessary indications of the intended purpose of the
program, so therefore aren't infringing (similar to the ECOPY decision
by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 July 2001 (Case R
47/2001-1) and some others).
I acknowledge that I do not know the best case law around this, so I
may change my position once educated.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: