On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <email@example.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that > > > > provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so > > > > far as it applied to the Debian package. Right? > > > > > > Note the wording makes it pretty much apply to everything, including the > > > renamed version debian would redistribute, so, for example, derivative > > > distributions should use yet another name... > > > > Ah, I see the problem, but I'm sure that's unintentional and could be > > fixed. > > > > However, this is now moot as it seems others have persuaded him to use > > separate copyright (LGPL, as before) and trademark licences. > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first > place. Is it ? It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a trademark, as the author claims. I don't think we really want to test that claim, do we? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part