[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New Ion3 licence

On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > IANAL, but I think you can hardly have a "trademark license" if it's not
> > registered.
> Why not?  Someone may dispute whether the license has any legal *force*, but
> in law you can provide a license to just about anything you're willing to
> assert ownership over... including, practically speaking, things you don't
> have any legal right to (such as bullshit software patents).

What does a trademark license serve if you can't enforce it ? Nothing. I
don't think that's the intent of ion3's upstream.


Reply to: