On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:41:21 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:29:09 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > > Your argument is that the trademark holder will win, because the > > > licensee exceeded the trademark license. I am afraid someone will > > > argue that the copyright license (from the same entity) should > > > count for more than the trademark license, and that therefore he > > > should win. > > > > That is why (I think) the original proposal by Nathanael included > > the sentence "but that is not a trademark license and should not be > > construed as one". > > Does this clarification prevent the misinterpretation you're afraid > > about? > > Yes, I think so. Sometimes the simplest solution is best. Good, can we recap a little bit? As I understand it, the current proposed wording is: | The work [X] is a trademark, held by [Y], representing [Z]. | | The Mark Holder hereby licenses you to use the Mark, or a modified | version thereof, in any way and for any purpose, with the exception of | the following: | | You are not authorized to use the Mark, or a modified version thereof, | in commerce in any way that is likely to cause confusion, or to cause | mistake, or to deceive | | (1) as to the affiliation, connection, or association of you or your | product, service or other commercial activity with the Mark Holder, or | | (2) as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of your product, | service or other commercial activity by the Mark Holder | | If the Mark qualifies as an original work of authorship under | copyright law, then it is licensed under the copyright license below, | but that is not a trademark license and should not be construed as | one. | | [Expat license follows] > > > > On the other hand, someone further down the road may remove the > > > fish and recover the swirl-and-bottle, then put that on his own > > > CD-ROMs with operating systems, which he then sells. Now what? > > > > That same person could modify the fish into the logo of Red Hat, > > Inc., then put that on his own CD-ROMs with OSes, which he then > > sells. Now what? Should we add a restriction to prevent this? And > > then to prevent the same with the logo of Sun Microsystems? Of > > Microsoft Corporation? Of Adobe Systems Inc.? Of ...? > > The reason I'm worried is because the copyright holder is the > same entity as the trademark holder. That is a special case. I can understand that, but I still think that this issue should be addressed without mixing copyright and trademark restrictions... [...] > > > so my opinion is based on hearsay, but in my opinion > > > the last thing you want in a lawsuit is hoping the jury agrees > > > with you. > > > > I'm not sure I follow you here: what do you hope in a lawsuit? That > > the jury *disagrees* with you? > > You hope never to go before a jury at all. Settle if you can, > because all bets are off. Ah, thanks for the clarification: I didn't understand what you meant. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp0SRxGYpsiE.pgp
Description: PGP signature